Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
Income Tax : Section 36 – Other Deductions Section 36 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, provides a list of explicit deductions for computin...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court, has held in CIT vs. Samara India(P) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 93 , following the decision of Supreme Court in T...
Income Tax : In this discussion, we would take up Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and analyse the provision therein from all fa...
Income Tax : ection 55 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides the option to the assesse to consider the fair market value of capital asset...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to assessee bank and consequently the...
Income Tax : During the course of a survey, it was seen that the assessee had defaulted in deducting tax at source on interest paid to AGE Pate...
Income Tax : In the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2001-02, the Coordinate Bench had upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 40% of the damages...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that additional claim of deduction of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act filed during the c...
Income Tax : AO on perusal of the details submitted by the assessee observed that the assessee could not prove the bad debts written off in its...
ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to assessee bank and consequently the tax on book profits (MAT) are not applicable to assessee bank. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee bank allowed.
During the course of a survey, it was seen that the assessee had defaulted in deducting tax at source on interest paid to AGE Patel Joint Venture (JV) in Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 on Mobilisation advance and Machinery advance.
In the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2001-02, the Coordinate Bench had upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to allow 40% of the damages under Section 14B of the Act as compensatory while treating the balance 60% as penal in nature and disallowing the same.
ITAT Mumbai held that additional claim of deduction of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act filed during the course of assessment other than filing a revised return is allowable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
AO on perusal of the details submitted by the assessee observed that the assessee could not prove the bad debts written off in its books of accounts are, in fact bad debts and irrecoverable with relevant evidences.
ITAT Surat held that the Fixed Deposits can be treated as stock-in-trade if it forms part of banking business. Further, held that deposits that forms part of banking business, write off such loss will be a loss arising in the course of carrying on banking business.
Held that the deposits made by the assessee were in the nature of fixed deposit investments. Therefore, the loss suffered by the assessee when the bank went to liquidation is only a capital loss.
Thus, penalty is not warranted on issues where a substantial question of law exists, indicating that the matter is not free from doubt. Accordingly, we quash the penalty order under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.
As a result, assessee was required to deduct TDS on payments made to Bemo. AO invoked Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on Rs. 12,69,79,006, disallowing the deduction.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is not required to prove that a particular debt had become bad debt in order to claim deduction on account of bad debt written off pursuant to the amendment made u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.1989.
