/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In M/S. Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [ITA No.1704/Bang/2018 AY 2012-2013 dated September 24, 2021], M/S. Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. ("the Appellant") filed an appeal against the Order dated March 19, 2018 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“CIT (A)”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-2013.
The Appellant, during AY 2012-2013, paid a huge amount towards provision of toilet facilities in Government Schools where the children of employees of the Appellant were studying. While filing the returns for that year, the Appellant claimed the same amount as Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) expenses and submitted that by incurring the expenses, its productivity improves and the loyalty of its employees are also ensured.
The Assessing Officer (“AO”) took the view that the expenditure had no nexus with the business of the Appellant and the AO accordingly disallowed the claim of the Appellant for deduction.
In the case, the Appellant contended that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business and should be allowed as a deduction.
However, the CIT (A) held that the expenses were in the nature of CSR and were therefore not allowable for deduction in view of Explanation 2 to Section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 ("the IT Act").
After taking perusal of all the facts and evidences, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”), Bangalore held that Explanation 2 of Section 37 (1) of the IT Act was effective from April 01, 2015 and therefore, won’t have retrospective applicability. Hence, allowed the appeal of the Appellant and the deduction sought was allowed.
(Author can be reached at email@example.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in P.R Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s United Spirits Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 548/2015 c/w I.T.A No. 37/2010 decided on September 2, 2021] answered in favor
In Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sonu Realtors Private Limited [INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.956 OF 2017 dated October 11, 2021], Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (“the Appellant”) filed the appeal being
In Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker v. The Income Tax Officer [ITA No. 2267-2270/Chny/2019 decided on November 3, 2021] Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“ITAT”) held that rental income from
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court (“Orissa HC”) in the matter of Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak v. Union of India and Others [W.P. (C) Nos. 10587 OF 2009 dated October 27, 2021], held that assessment proceedings
In M/s. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [ITA 3064 /BANG/2018, decided on November 10, 2021], Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“ITAT”)