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 : 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...
Income Tax : Consistency over technicalities: ITAT Mumbai allowed actuarial pension provision as an ascertained liability, rejected mechanical ...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that interest disallowance cannot be made when sufficient interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that a...
Income Tax : 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 o...
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.
ITAT Mumbai held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year. Accordingly, no further disallowance u/s. 14A is called for.
The tribunal held that recomputation of deductions under Sections 36(1)(viia)(c) and 36(1)(viii) involves a debatable legal issue. Such matters cannot be corrected through Section 154 rectification proceedings.
The Tribunal affirmed restricting Section 14A disallowance to the actual exempt income earned. It also held the Finance Act, 2022 explanation to be prospective, protecting taxpayers for earlier years.
