← All Phrases

“Section 37(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 37Section 37(1)4,308 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 37(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 37(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

Judgments citing Section 37(1)

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

acceptance of deposits from public. Thus, the observation of the learned CIT[A] that the said interest expenditure is hit by explanation to section 37[1] of the Act is not correct and misconceived. 10.8 Ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer failed to appreciate the contractual obligations existed ... guidelines were prohibited by law to be carried out by the assessee. This will need to be viewed in light of explanation to section 37 (1): - “The Explanation added by the Parliament to sub-section (1) of section 37 vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 with retrospective effect from 1

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

acceptance of deposits from public. Thus, the observation of the learned CIT[A] that the said interest expenditure is hit by explanation to section 37[1] of the Act is not correct and misconceived. 10.8 Ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer failed to appreciate the contractual obligations existed ... guidelines were prohibited by law to be carried out by the assessee. This will need to be viewed in light of explanation to section 37 (1): - “The Explanation added by the Parliament to sub-section (1) of section 37 vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 with retrospective effect from 1

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

acceptance of deposits from public. Thus, the observation of the learned CIT[A] that the said interest expenditure is hit by explanation to section 37[1] of the Act is not correct and misconceived. 10.8 Ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer failed to appreciate the contractual obligations existed ... guidelines were prohibited by law to be carried out by the assessee. This will need to be viewed in light of explanation to section 37 (1): - “The Explanation added by the Parliament to sub-section (1) of section 37 vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 with retrospective effect from 1

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

acceptance of deposits from public. Thus, the observation of the learned CIT[A] that the said interest expenditure is hit by explanation to section 37[1] of the Act is not correct and misconceived. 10.8 Ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer failed to appreciate the contractual obligations existed ... guidelines were prohibited by law to be carried out by the assessee. This will need to be viewed in light of explanation to section 37 (1): - “The Explanation added by the Parliament to sub-section (1) of section 37 vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 with retrospective effect from 1

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

acceptance of deposits from public. Thus, the observation of the learned CIT[A] that the said interest expenditure is hit by explanation to section 37[1] of the Act is not correct and misconceived. 10.8 Ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer failed to appreciate the contractual obligations existed ... guidelines were prohibited by law to be carried out by the assessee. This will need to be viewed in light of explanation to section 37 (1): - “The Explanation added by the Parliament to sub-section (1) of section 37 vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 with retrospective effect from 1

M/S Transcon Skycity Pvt Ltd. (Formerly Samta Builders Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4858/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Anchor Health & Beuty Care Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

impugned year and the same are allowable as revenue expenses in the impugned year by following mercantile system of accounting as per section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee company further stated that the impugned expenditure does not amount to any enduring benefit of assessee’s asset

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 92C

applicable. IT(TP)A No.413/Bang/2022 Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 13 of 32 ESOP cross-charges are deductible under Section 37(1) of the Act 2.15 Ld. A.R. submitted that as indicated earlier, the ESOP cross-charges represents the actual expenditure incurred by the Company ... would imply the compensation paid to its employees is not allowable under section 37 of the Act. 2.17 Provision of section 37(1) of the Act inter alia provides that "any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession, not being

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

IT(TP)A No.213/Bang/2021 M/s. Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Byd India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 102/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

Byd India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

M/S. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2179/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Bank Charges 1,15,910 Total 27,92,23,547 7.6. The ld. AR relied on the provisons of section 37(1) of the Act which states that for the purpose of availing deduction thereon, the expenses should be – (i) should be incurred in the previous year relevant

Mahindra Homes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Bank Charges 1,15,910 Total 27,92,23,547 7.6. The ld. AR relied on the provisons of section 37(1) of the Act which states that for the purpose of availing deduction thereon, the expenses should be – (i) should be incurred in the previous year relevant

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

Appellant prays that the education cess on income tax paid for the year under consideration ought to be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act while computing the total income”. 3. In ITA No. 480/Ahd/2011, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ... appellant prays that the education cess on income tax paid for the year under consideration ought to be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act while computing the total income”. 8 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee

Green Twig Estate Management P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 3419/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Green Twig Estate Management Ito-2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) Vs. M.K. Road, (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Mumbai-400020. Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaecg 1617 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajkumar Singh Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

agreements. The Income-tax authorities are authori are authorized to examine the expenditu ed to examine the expenditure incurred from the angle of section 37(1) of the from the angle of section 37(1) of the Act so as to verify whether the so as to verify whether

Green Twig Estate Management P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 3418/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Green Twig Estate Management Ito-2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) Vs. M.K. Road, (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Mumbai-400020. Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaecg 1617 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajkumar Singh Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

agreements. The Income-tax authorities are authori are authorized to examine the expenditu ed to examine the expenditure incurred from the angle of section 37(1) of the from the angle of section 37(1) of the Act so as to verify whether the so as to verify whether

M/S. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore - 4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. [1999] 105 Taxman 346 (Madras)/[1999] 239 1TR 435 (Madras), head note of which reads as under: - "Section 37(1), read with section 201(1A), of the Income- tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 1981-82 - Assessee having failed to deduct

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2732/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

being expenditure incurred towards RTO charges and vehicle transfer charges as capital expenditure and thereby erred in not allowing the same under section 37(1) of the Act. 2.2. The learned AO/ CIT(A) failed to appreciate that expenditure incurred towards RTO charges and vehicle transfer is incurred wholly ... exclusively for the purpose of business and therefore should be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. 2.3. The learned AO/ CIT(A) erred in law and facts, in not allowing expenditure amounting to INR 25,000 incurred towards earnest money deposit. 3. The learned

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2611/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

being expenditure incurred towards RTO charges and vehicle transfer charges as capital expenditure and thereby erred in not allowing the same under section 37(1) of the Act. 2.2. The learned AO/ CIT(A) failed to appreciate that expenditure incurred towards RTO charges and vehicle transfer is incurred wholly ... exclusively for the purpose of business and therefore should be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. 2.3. The learned AO/ CIT(A) erred in law and facts, in not allowing expenditure amounting to INR 25,000 incurred towards earnest money deposit. 3. The learned

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

Education Cess determined on Income-tax paid for the current year ought to have been granted by the AO as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 while computing the business income. 4. Assessee has further raised modified and additional ground of appeal which ... prays that the liability for education cess on Income-tax paid for the current year ought to be allowed as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act while computing the business income. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the above additional grounds and modified grounds