9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment addresses various substantial questions of law related to the allowance of expenditures incurred for Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB), bank charges, administrative fees, development expenses, disallowance of premium, provision for pending labor demand, and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and u/s 35(2AB).
Expenditure for FCCB: The Tribunal's decision to allow the expenditure incurred for FCCB, including bank charges and administrative fees, was questioned. The issue was whether such expenses should be considered allowable under the circumstances and in accordance with the law. Bank charges for consortuum loan: The Tribunal's decision to allow bank charges paid to the lead manager for taking a consortuum loan was challenged. The question was whether such charges constitute allowable expenditure. Development expenses for Euro IV Compliant Engine: The Tribunal's decision to allow the expenditure incurred for the development of Euro IV Compliant Engine, despite its enduring nature and requirement for capitalization, was disputed. The issue was whether the benefit derived should be capitalized instead of treated as revenue expenditure. Development expenses for new range of tractors: The Tribunal's decision to treat expenses incurred on the development of a new range of tractors as revenue in nature, despite the enduring benefit requiring capitalization, was contested. The issue was whether such expenses should be capitalized. Disallowance of premium on redemption of FCCB: The Tribunal's deletion of the disallowance of pro rata premium payable on the redemption of FCCB was challenged. The question was whether such expenses, related to fully convertible bonds into equity shares, should be treated as capital expenditure. Provision for pending labor demand: The Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction in respect of the provision for pending labor demand was questioned. The issue was whether such deduction was justified under the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with the law. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia): The Tribunal's setting aside of the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) was disputed. The issue was whether the Tribunal erred in relying on certain decisions that were deemed irrelevant to the issue under consideration, particularly in light of Explanation (iv) to Section 194H. Weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB): The Tribunal's direction to allow weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for the Nashik Unit and Kandivli unit, despite certain mandatory conditions not being fulfilled, was challenged. The issue was whether such deductions should be allowed without meeting the prescribed requirements.
|
