ROC fees for increase in nominal share capital
This query is : Resolved
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
18 September 2010
Friends,
A co has increased nominal share capital & paid ROC fees.
Is there a case law [specially SC] to allow this expense as a deduction in Income-tax?
Thanks
A co has increased nominal share capital & paid ROC fees.
Is there a case law [specially SC] to allow this expense as a deduction in Income-tax?
Thanks
18 September 2010
Delhi high court in (2001) 250 ITR 338 said 35D can be claimed if such expenditure is incurred in connection with the expansion of the industrial undertaking or in connection with setting up of the new industrial undertaking.
18 September 2010
Agreed it will be deffered and allowed in 5 instalment.
18 September 2010
But Kerala High court in The Federal Bank Ltd's case said that the referred expenditure is revenue in nature applying commerecial expedency test. I don't remember the citation right now and hence request members of this club to clarify and comment on it according to their convenience.
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
18 September 2010
Thanks Mr. Warrier,
But the said judgement of Delhi HC in CIT vs Hindustan Insectides [250 ITR 338] of 2001 says that ROC fees paid for increasing nominal capital does not qualify for deduction @ 20% pa under sec 35D(2)(c)(iii). This is because enhancing nominal capital is not the same as registering a company.
So if ROC fees are paid for increasing nominal capital that is not a public issue [Sec 35D (2)(c)(iv)] for expansion of business [Sec 35D(1)(ii)], amortisation would not be available.
But the said judgement of Delhi HC in CIT vs Hindustan Insectides [250 ITR 338] of 2001 says that ROC fees paid for increasing nominal capital does not qualify for deduction @ 20% pa under sec 35D(2)(c)(iii). This is because enhancing nominal capital is not the same as registering a company.
So if ROC fees are paid for increasing nominal capital that is not a public issue [Sec 35D (2)(c)(iv)] for expansion of business [Sec 35D(1)(ii)], amortisation would not be available.
19 September 2010
Have a look at Federal Bank Ltd Vs. CIT (1989)180 ITR 241 (Ker).
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
- Is this income indian or foreign income?
- 15ca /15cb whose income tax login? remitter or nri seller's login?
- RCM applicability on Rent Paid by Registered Person to Unregistered Landlord for Residental Building
- GST on export of services and Input Credit
- TDS U/S. 194NF
- Regarding Documentation & Compliances for Opening of Unit of Pvt Ltd.
- ITC temporary reversal and reclaim
- Inventory of finished goods
- Applicable TDS rate for sale of property in Nov 2024
- Tds on building rent monthly
- Confusion around Form 26QB fields
- Adjustment entry in the case of Individual and HUF on 31st March
- Stock difference tax applicable on composite rate or normal rate
- LAST YEAR 2022-23 ITC IN NEXT YEAR 2023-24 REPORITNG IN GSTR-9
- MIS MATCH OF INVOICE NUMBER
- IGST Credit-Show cause notice issued-confusion
- Issue of gst e invoice
- 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?
Trending Online Classes
CAclubindia
