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
- Due date for filing return for the partner in partnership subjected to Tax Audit
- GST on reimbursement of expenses
- Visiting card purchase
- Query on effect of registration of property
- Goodwill transfer of deceased father’s firm – ICAI applying a 27.04.2026 cut-off to the 3 year limit
- Equity Share Sale and Purchase
- Wrong CMPo8 file
- Whether output tax is taken credit by purchaser
- Additional trade name
- Number of years as per AS amortisation of Goodwill
- Foriegn assets disclosure
- Classification of income of P Ltd company as business or profession
- Opting out" of regime provided under subsection (1A) of Section 115BAC but Form 10IEA is not filed.
- "Please ensure that the Total of the Deductions u/s 54F match the same in Table D in Sch CG"
- Need to correct "Whether it is last installment " response in Form 26 QB
- " Income from House Property " in joint names of co-owners
- REGARDING TDS RETURN OF FORM 27Q
- Notice under e-Verification Scheme
- GST demand notice for ITC reversal against exempted supply.
- RCM ON SECURITY CHARGES FROM INDIVIDUALS
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals
CAclubindia
