SUPREME COURT
S.A. BOBDE, J
Commissioner of Income Tax Udaipur Rajasthan v. Mcdowell & Co. Ltd.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bank guarantees cannot equate to actual payments for tax deductions. (Para 1 , 4 , 8) |
| 2. examining actual usage is critical for determining capital versus revenue expenditures. (Para 5 , 6 , 14) |
| 3. deductions under s.43b necessitate verified transactions. (Para 10 , 12 , 40) |
| 4. tax obligations require proper legislative backing for deducible expenses. (Para 15 , 21 , 23) |
1. Questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, this appeal has been filed. The questions raised before the High Court are as follows:
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of the bank guarantee, to be treated as actual payment and accordingly allowing the deduction in respect of the same under S.43B of the Act, even though the sum has not been actually paid before the due date of filing the return under S.139(1) of the Act.
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in allowing the depreciation on research & development assets which related to the closed business of fast food div
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.