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
- ITR 2 Short Term gain & Long term gain
- Off Market debit and credit transaction
- Itr 1 processing
- Reporting Income under Section 44ADA
- ITR returnFY25-26
- INCOME TAX ON REDEVELOPEMENT OF FLAT
- Form 10E u/s 89(1). Need clarification because experts opinions differ !!!!
- Short Term Capital gain on shares bought and sold after 2018 onwards
- ITR validation error - Balance sheet is not filled
- ITR 1: Details for showing Exempt Income
- Building and other construction workers welfare cess act 1996
- Article ship defecit
- Opting out" of regime provided under subsection (1A) of Section 115BAC but Form 10IEA is not filed.
- Difference in tax comparison report
- Gst invoice numbering and delivery challan numbering
- Sales amount in Gstr1
- Tax liability on income of freelancer
- E Commerce GSTR1 & 3B how to file
- GST Cancellation without jurisdiction
- Legal Opinion on Registrar's Refusal to Investigate a Society for Non-Renewal and Non-Compliance
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
