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 held that Accounting Standard-19 governs accounting treatment but does not determine tax treatment under the Income-tax Act. ...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that bad debt deduction cannot be denied where the debt was effectively written off through accounting ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamated bank after it had ceased to exist is void ab ini...
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...
Where assessee paid interest on term loan which had entirely been used for purpose of purchasing the assets for purpose of business which were hypothecated to bank and it had sufficient interest-free funds to take care of advances, the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was allowable.
The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee advanced a sum of Rs. 2 crores on 20.5.1992 to Broker Shri.Pallav Sheth under portfolio management scheme. The said broker is supposed to manage the trading portfolio of shares and securities on behalf of the assessee.
In the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Supersonic Turner Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Bench of ITAT have held that where ESI/PF received from the employees was deposited late but before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139 (1) the amount cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or 36 (1) (va).
In case of CIT vs. M/s Kudu Industries, P&H High Court held that In the absence of anything to indicate that the interest free advance was made only from a particular corresponding advance received by the assessee, the advance made by the assessee would obviously be from the common pool of money.
Whether the deposit by the assessee of the employee’s contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) or to the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), i.e., as an employer, after the respective due dates, i.e., under the respective Acts, where-under both the employee and the employer are obliged to contribute a sum, reckoned as a percentage of an employee’s salary,
Where huge funds were available without any interest liability with assessee and there was no evidence to hold that borrowed money was utilized for purpose of advance to sister concerns, no disallowance of interest was warranted.
ection 55 (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides the option to the assesse to consider the fair market value of capital assets as on the 1st day of April , 1981 as the cost of acquisition where the same were acquired before April 1, 1981. This base year has been in use since the last amendment made under the Finance Act, 1992.
Amount of advance given to M/s Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Limited was advanced in the course of business. It is undisputed that the advances became irrecoverable. In such situation, as per the ratio emanating from the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case
We find lot of complications and procedural delays in setting up and approval of gratuity funds. This can be simplified and any payment made for funding gratuity liability made to insurers like the Life Insurance Corporation of Indian can be allowed.
Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is allowable independently and irrespective of provisions for bad and doubtful debts created by the assessee in relation to the advances of the rural branches, subject to the limitation that an amount should not be deducted twice under section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia ).
