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
- TDS CREDIT MISMATCHING
- Buy back of shares u/s69
- Difference between Date of Payment and Date of Deduction?
- Tax Audit Applicability – Newly Formed Partnership Firm with Profit Below 6%/8%
- Unregistered suppliers utility
- ADDITION OF CHALLAN IN TDS RETURN FORM 140
- LIC maturity claim whether taxable
- TODAY INCOME TAX SITE IS NOT WORKING ANY OFFICIAL EXTENSION
- Cash balance limit and property purchases limit
- Can we choose not to report losses in ITR3 if they cannot be carried forward?
- RCM @ 5% on Hamali charges, Transport Charges, Unloading charges we take ITC or not
- CALCULATION OF DEFFERED TAX - OP BL IS DTL & CURRET IT DTA
- LLP audit under companies act
- Experienced CA recommendation from Kolkata for FNO return filing
- Interest Reporting in Form 168
- Sales of goods of amount Rs77 lakhs to a party
- Tax Demand of ₹4,650 for AY 2026-27
- Concept of Vendor and customner reconciliation
- Mistake in e-invoice identified after 24 hours
- EXPORT PAYMENT
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
