Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2009 (5) TMI 841

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und No. 2 was not pressed by learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing ; therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 3 is against upholding the disallowance of Rs. 25,100 attributable to web-site expenses and software development charges, holding the same to be expenses of capital nature. The assessee had shown expenditure on domain booking charges at Rs.550 on web ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The second issue relates to upholding the disallowance of tele-connection charges claimed at Rs. 38,500 treated as capital expenditure. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 24,500 for handsets and claimed it as revenue in nature. The assessee also paid a sum of Rs. 14,000 to M/s. Reliance Infocomm Ltd. for talk time charges under the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Offer Scheme. The Assessing Officer however ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elephone in the same accounting year, there may not be any difficulty in claiming the deduction in that year. But in case the telephone is installed in a year subsequent to the year in which the payment is made, which may well happen, the amount, it is apprehended, may be treated only as an advance, and, therefore, may not be considered eligible for deduction in the year of payment". However, in ....