Share Capital
This query is : Resolved
02 June 2008
A Company already doing business has increased its authorised Capital.
The Expenses incurred for the same has been taken as prelimenary expenses. Is the treatment right?
The Expenses incurred for the same has been taken as prelimenary expenses. Is the treatment right?
02 June 2008
Hi..
Share Issue expenses and expenses on increasing authorised Share
Capital, being a capital expenditure, should be shown under Misc Expenditure and should be amortised over a period of ten years
Share Issue expenses and expenses on increasing authorised Share
Capital, being a capital expenditure, should be shown under Misc Expenditure and should be amortised over a period of ten years
05 June 2008
Increase in share capital is completely dissallowed as per IT act..
05 June 2008
Expenses relating to increase in share Capital. . . And an u please mention the section that increase in share capital is disallowed by the IT Act . .
Thanking You
Thanking You
21 August 2008
No since the company is already in business therefore exp. incurred on increaseing Auth. cap ican not be treated as Preliminary expenses.
19 November 2008
i request all of you to please mention the case citation as my assessment is pending
11 December 2009
Fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increasing Authorised Capital will result in an advantage of enduring nature and is a Capital Exp. [Case Law- Punjab State Industrial Developement Corporation Ltd V/s CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792/93 Taxman 5 (SC)].
However u/s 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act,only fees paid for registration of the Company is deductible.Fees paid for increase in share capital is not fees for registration of the Company,and hence it is not amortisable under this provision-Case law CIT v/s Hindustan Insecticides Ltd.[2001] 250 ITR 338 (Delhi)
Rgds,
Vaibhav/Gautam
RGD & Co.
However u/s 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act,only fees paid for registration of the Company is deductible.Fees paid for increase in share capital is not fees for registration of the Company,and hence it is not amortisable under this provision-Case law CIT v/s Hindustan Insecticides Ltd.[2001] 250 ITR 338 (Delhi)
Rgds,
Vaibhav/Gautam
RGD & Co.
16 August 2010
Why cant we claim that the expense is for the wholly and exclusive purpose of business?
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Applicability
- Is Aadhar PAN linking required for opening bank account?
- Where to show the RCM on Rent paid to unregistered landlord
- CPC Processing IT Return for AY 2023-24 without recognizing the Taxation Option under New Regime
- Application of 115BAC
- RCM - commercial rent paid to URP under GST
- Offsetting interest income against derivative trading losses
- TDS NUMBER SURRENDER
- GSTR-3B - Do I file nil when there is no sale but I've bought raw materials
- Legal heir raised refund , but refund issued to the closed account of deceased.
- Whether still royalty
- 20% OF DEMAND PAYMENT IN APPEAL
- Issue of gst e invoice
- Interchangeable words in accounts
- Adjusted profit/Loss in the case of LLP and Pvt. Ltd.company
- How to adjusted advances given or receipt
- Foreign vendor without PAN unable to to register due to non receipt of OTP on foreign number ?
- 133(6) DIN INVALID format error - ->WHERE TO REPLY 133(6) notice?
- Query for dubts
- Regarding Resignation by Auditor from Pvt. Ltd.
Trending Online Classes
-
Excel Mastery Program
CA Rishabh Pugalia
CAclubindia
