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 : The ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond four years cannot survive unless the Assessing Officer records that the assessee ...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that an assessee need not prove that a debt has actually become irrecoverable to claim a bad debt deductio...
Income Tax : State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided cross-appeals filed by a p...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of ac...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desires deeper investigation after detai...
The ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond four years cannot survive unless the Assessing Officer records that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. Since the recorded reasons contained no such allegation, the notice under Section 148 was declared invalid. The consequential reassessment order was quashed.
The Bangalore ITAT held that an assessee need not prove that a debt has actually become irrecoverable to claim a bad debt deduction. The Tribunal ruled that a proper write-off in the books of account is enough to qualify for the deduction.
State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided cross-appeals filed by a public sector bank and the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11. The case involved a large number of recurring banking-taxation issues including pension provisions, depreciation on securities, bad debts, section 14A disallowance, taxation of […]
Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of account. It rejected the Revenue’s view that NPAs classified earlier must necessarily be written off in those earlier years.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desires deeper investigation after detailed assessment scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined all major issues through extensive enquiries and documentation.
Consistency over technicalities: ITAT Mumbai allowed actuarial pension provision as an ascertained liability, rejected mechanical disallowances, and held CBDT instructions cannot override the Income-tax Act.
ITAT ruled that interest disallowance cannot be made when sufficient interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that availability of own funds overrides assumptions of borrowed fund usage.
ITAT Mumbai held that no TDS is liable to be deducted when payment is made for serving food in a restaurant in the normal course of running of the restaurant/café. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi held that approval from the PCCIT or PDGIT is mandatory, as provided u/s 35(2AB)(iv) of the Act. Since such mandatory approval of R&D facility from the PCCIT or PDGIT was not obtained by the assessee therefore, weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act cannot be allowed.
The Revenue challenged allowance of bad debts due to lack of NCLT evidence. The Tribunal held that post-amendment law requires only write-off in books, not proof of irrecoverability. The ruling reinforces that accounting write-off alone is sufficient for deduction.
