Skip to main content

Ruling on business expenditure

Interest paid by a company on borrowings from banks to advance money to its own subsidiary is 'business expenditure' on which tax deduction can be claimed, the Supreme Court has ruled in its judgment, Hero Cycles Ltd vs CIT. In this case, the company which was the promoter of Hero Fibres Ltd, took loans and paid interest on it. The money was paid to the sister concern due to business expediency in view of an undertaking given to financial institutions that it would provide additional margin to meet working capital for meeting any cash losses. When the company claimed deduction on it as business expenditure, the revenue authorities denied it. The company moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court but it dismissed the appeal maintaining that when loans were taken from banks at which interest was paid for purposes of business, the interest component could not be claimed as business expenditure. The company moved the Supreme Court. Allowing its appeal, the apex court gave a wider meaning to the phrase business expenditure. The judgment explained that the advance given to the sister concern was imperative. "The revenue authorities cannot put themselves in the arm chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure. The authorities cannot decide how a prudent businessman would act," the judgment said.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/family-accord-prevails-over-law-suits-115120600838_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more