Live Help
Get News Alerts from Taxmann.com on your desktop.
No Thanks Allow
You have blocked the notification on recent updates. Click below to re-subscribe.
No Thanks
You have already subscribed to Taxmann’s notification.
No Thanks UnSubscribe
Your Session Will Expire in   seconds.
If you do not wish to log-out, choose 'Let me continue'
Reset Session Cancel Session
 

No disallowance could be made if assessee duly provided evidences with regards to payment of gratuity

November 5, 2019[2019] 110 taxmann.com 176 (Delhi - Trib.)
142 Views

INCOME TAX: Where gratuity was actually paid by assessee employer to its employees, no disallowance under section 40A(7) could be made and actual payment of gratuity was to be allowed under section 36(1)(v)

INCOME TAX: Where assessee-company, engaged in providing telecom infrastructure to various telecom service providers, credited certain amount to its P&L account under head lease equalisation reserve which was to be collected or collectible by assessee from telecom companies on account of use of space on assessee's towers, since collection of lease rent was contingent upon use of premises in future, assessee had made hypothetical income and not a real income and, therefore, same could not be brought to tax

INCOME TAX: Where assessee company, engaged in providing telecom infrastructure to various telecom service providers, debited an amount to P&L account on account of lease rent to be paid or payable by assessee to owner of premise on which telecom towers were installed, since liability to pay lease rent was contingent upon use of premises in future, impugned expenditure was a notional expense not allowable under section 37

INCOME TAX: Where telecom sites constructed by assessee-company, engaged in providing telecom infrastructure, were ready even before suppliers of various materials for erection of said sites were paid, interest paid on loan taken for construction of telecom sites could not be disallowed for reason that no business was actually commenced by assessee at time of construction of sites

INCOME TAX: Where assessee, engaged in providing telecom infrastructure, paid indefeasible right to use (IRU) charges to several parties for using telecom sites towers and claimed same as allowable expenditure and Assessing Officer after issuing notices under section 133(6) to said parties to confirm total IRU charges paid by assessee to them allowed said charges as expenditure, since confirmations filed by such parties were not properly verified either by Commissioner (Appeals) or by Assessing Officer before allowing claim of assessee, matter was to be remanded

INCOME TAX: One time loan processing fees (upfront fee) paid by assessee in respect of loan borrowed for financing regular/normal business operations was to be allowed as revenue expenditure

taxmann.com
Payment
Best view in 1140 x 768