Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Tribunal upholds deletion of disallowances under Income Tax Act, Revenue's appeal dismissed

        ACIT, Circle-20 (1), New Delhi Versus Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd.

        ACIT, Circle-20 (1), New Delhi Versus Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
        2. Deletion of addition under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:

        Background:
        The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 1,84,960/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income.

        Arguments:
        - The Revenue argued that the AO's disallowance should be sustained.
        - The respondent countered by stating that no dividend income was earned during the year, and cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, which held that if no dividend income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted.

        Tribunal's Findings:
        - The Tribunal referenced the CIT(A)'s observations and several judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decisions in Godrej A Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd v DCIT and Maxopp Investment Ltd v CIT.
        - It was emphasized that Section 14A aims to prevent the deduction of expenses related to exempt income and that the AO must record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim before making a disallowance.
        - The Tribunal noted that the assessee had no dividend income and the investments were strategic, thus aligning with the ruling in CIT vs. Holcim India (P) Ltd.
        - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted since no dividend income was earned, and the investments were strategic.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground, affirming that no disallowance under Section 14A was justified in the absence of dividend income.

        2. Deletion of Addition under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act:

        Background:
        The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 96,14,068/- disallowed by the AO under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The AO treated this amount as deferred revenue expenditure based on a concession agreement with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

        Arguments:
        - The AO argued that the expenditure should be spread over the concession period (5 years), allowing only 20% of the total expenditure for the year under consideration.
        - The respondent contended that the entire expenditure was revenue in nature and should be allowed in the year it was incurred, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in City Financial Consumer Finance Ltd.

        Tribunal's Findings:
        - The Tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)'s decision and the Delhi High Court's ruling in City Financial Consumer Finance Ltd, which clarified that revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year should be allowed in that year unless the assessee opts to spread it over subsequent years.
        - The Tribunal noted that the expenditure was genuine, incurred for business purposes, and not doubted by the AO.
        - It was emphasized that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure in the Income Tax Act, and the assessee is entitled to claim the entire expenditure in the year it was incurred.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 96,14,068/-, affirming that the entire expenditure should be allowed in the year it was incurred. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

        3. General Ground of Appeal:

        Background:
        The Revenue included a general ground of appeal to add, delete, or amend any grounds of appeal.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal did not adjudicate on this ground as it was general in nature and did not require specific adjudication.

        Final Decision:
        The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in its entirety, upholding the CIT(A)'s order to delete the disallowances under Sections 14A and 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 12th June 2018.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found