Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, allows deductions for business expenses, and rejects Revenue's appeal.</h1> <h3>ITO, Ward-4 (2). Kolkata Versus M/s Marcopolo Products Private Limited and Vice-Versa</h3> ITO, Ward-4 (2). Kolkata Versus M/s Marcopolo Products Private Limited and Vice-Versa - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition of insurance premium of Rs. 45,00,000/-2. Deletion of addition of a part of Director's salary amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 27,168/- as club expense4. Disallowance of Rs. 1,82,917/- towards prior period expenses5. Addition of Rs. 43,571/- towards Sundry Creditors as deemed income under Section 41(1) of IT Act, 1961Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition of Insurance Premium of Rs. 45,00,000/-:The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid as insurance premium for directors under a keyman insurance policy. The AO added this amount to the total income of the assessee, questioning the benefit derived from the directors' services. The CIT(A), however, allowed the deduction, relying on case law and CBDT circular No. 762, which clarified that such premiums are allowable business deductions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. B.N. EXPORTS, which affirmed that premiums paid for keyman insurance policies are business expenditures. The Tribunal concluded that the payment was made to protect the company from potential losses due to the directors' untimely death, thus dismissing the Revenue's ground.2. Deletion of Addition of a Part of Director's Salary Amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-:The AO disallowed Rs. 10,00,000/- of the director's remuneration, deeming it excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) found the director's qualifications and contributions justified the remuneration, noting his role in generating significant business. The Tribunal concurred, referencing Section 40A(2)(a), which allows disallowance of excessive payments to related persons. However, given the director's substantial business contributions, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the remuneration was not excessive or unreasonable, thus dismissing the Revenue's ground.3. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 27,168/- as Club Expense:The AO disallowed club membership expenses, questioning their business relevance. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, citing case law that such expenses facilitate business operations. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing Section 37 and decisions like COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAMTEL COLOR LTD and DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BANK OF AMERICA SECURITIES (INDIA) (P) LTD, which affirmed that club membership fees incurred for business purposes are allowable deductions. The Tribunal concluded that the expenses were for business facilitation, not capital expenditure, thus dismissing the Revenue's ground.4. Disallowance of Rs. 1,82,917/- Towards Prior Period Expenses:This issue was not pursued by the assessee during the proceedings, and the ground was dismissed as not pressed.5. Addition of Rs. 43,571/- Towards Sundry Creditors as Deemed Income Under Section 41(1) of IT Act, 1961:The AO added Rs. 43,571/- to the income, considering it a ceased liability. The CIT(A) upheld this, citing the assessee's failure to prove the liability's existence. The Tribunal, however, referenced a prior decision (ITA1345/KOL/2011) which clarified that Section 41(1) applies only if there is remission or cessation of liability within the relevant assessment year. In this case, the liability was carried forward without remission or cessation during the relevant year. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was not justified under Section 41(1), thus allowing the assessee's ground.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection. The key points of contention were resolved in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of substantiating business-related expenses and adhering to statutory provisions for disallowances and additions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found