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...
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 ).
Once it is borne out from the record that the assessee had borrowed certain funds on which liability to pay tax is being incurred and on the other hand, certain amounts had been advanced to sister concerns or others without carrying any interest and without any business purpose, the interest to the extent the advance had been made without carrying any interest is to be disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
ACIT Vs Ashima Dye cot Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad)- After the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1989, in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable: it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.
JCIT Vs M/s Videocon Industries (ITAT Mumbai) – It is seen on perusal of the assessment records of assessment year 1999-2000 that the loss on sale of shares on SMS Pharmaceuticals has been declared as long term capital loss. This shows that the transaction in respect of the purchase and sale of shares of SMS Pharmaceuticals are nothing but transfer of capital asset and not part of the business of the assessee company. This fact is evident from the assessment records of previous assessment years wherein the shares have been shown as investments. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee company that the said loss of Rs.95,00,000/- should be allowed as a business loss and thereby writing it off as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowable as the conditions laid down by section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied by the assessee company .
Hindustan Platinum Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Statement given u/s 131 cannot be the only basis for disallowing the claim of depreciation when it is shown with documentary evidence that the admission made in the statement recorded was under a mistake or misapprehension. Assessee is not entitled to claim loss u/s 28 on account bad debt of the advance given as inter corporate deposit without establishing the fact that it was a trade advance
Where the assessee-bank has instituted recovery suits in Courts against it’s debtors, if individual accounts are to be closed, then the Debtor/Defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed.
In a recent ruling Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. on the issue of whether a taxpayer, while claiming deduction of bad debts in its return of income, is required to establish that the debts have, in fact, become irrecoverable. The SC held that post the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii) (Section) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), for claiming deduction of bad debts
