“Section 9(1)(iii)”
The decision most relied on for Section 9(1)(iii) is Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others (3 SCC 195), cited in 43 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 9(1)(iii)
The expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or similar provisions must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. Courts should avoid a pedantic or hyper-technical approach, generally accepting explanations unless negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is evident.
When an assessee writes off a debt as bad, it is a decision made in the ordinary course of business. The Income Tax Officer cannot question the correctness of this decision unless there is evidence of fraud or mala fide.
Fees for technical services (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) are not taxable if they are not 'technical' in nature or rendered in India. Services are not necessarily FTS if they are managerial and provided to an associated enterprise.
Interest paid on borrowed funds used for construction is deductible as a revenue expenditure, even if the assessee follows the projection completion method. Such interest can be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii).
Payments made by an assessee to a non-resident for training its personnel or customers to explain product features and impart usage instructions do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS).
