January 20, 2026 12:28 pm

Direct Taxation

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 37(1) – Deduction – Pharmaceutical companies’ gifting freebies to doctors, etc. is clearly “prohibited by law”, and not allowed to be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1)

Bysclaw

Feb 27, 2022

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 197, 245Q, 245R(2)(iii) — Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius, Article 13(4) — Capital Gains Tax — Advance Ruling — Tax Avoidance — The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) rejected an application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the transaction (sale of shares of a Singapore company by a Mauritius company) was prima facie designed for tax avoidance — The High Court overturned this decision, holding the assessee was entitled to treaty benefits and that their income was not chargeable in India — The Supreme Court is examining whether the AAR was correct in rejecting the applications for advance ruling on maintainability grounds.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 28, 47(vii), 2(47), 2(14) — Taxability of Amalgamation — Shares held as Stock-in-Trade vs. Capital Assets — Receipt of shares of amalgamated company in lieu of shares of amalgamating company — If the shares of the amalgamating company were held as capital assets, the receipt of shares of the amalgamated company is a “transfer” under Section 2(47) but exempt from Capital Gains tax under Section 47(vii), provided the requirements of that section are met (amalgamated company is Indian, transfer in consideration of allotment of shares). (Paras 2, 8.3, 12, 12.1, 27)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29)

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Service Law — Recruitment and Appointment — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Candor and Integrity — Application forms (Attestation and Verification Forms) required disclosure of pending criminal cases — Applicant answered in the negative despite two criminal cases pending against him (Case Crime Nos. 198/2019 and 215/2018) — Non-disclosure was repeated (in both forms) and therefore held to reflect deliberate concealment/mal-intent, striking at the core of trust required for public service — Suppression was a violation of clear stipulations/disclaimers in the forms making concealment a disqualification/render applicant unfit for government service — Subsequent voluntary disclosure (via affidavit) or later acquittal/dropping of proceedings do not nullify the fact that candidate provided incorrect and false information at the time of filling the forms — High Court erred in overlooking the repeated concealment and calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’ — Cancellation of appointment upheld. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 — Resistance and Obstruction to Execution of Decree for Possession — Adjudication of rights of obstructionists — Where transferees pendente lite obstruct execution of a decree for possession, the Executing Court must adjudicate the claim; if the obstructionist is found to be a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is limited to this fact, and such a transferee has no right to resist execution of the decree — The remedy for removal of obstruction is by application under Order 21 Rule 97 by the decree holder, followed by adjudication under Rule 98-101 (Maharashtra Amendment) which bars a separate suit. (Paras 53, 54, 55, 59, 65)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

Administrative Law — Competence of authorities — State Governments lack legislative competence to prescribe additional experience as an essential qualification for Drug Inspectors when the Central Government has already occupied the field.

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw