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 : 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...
Income Tax : ITAT Surat held that the Fixed Deposits can be treated as stock-in-trade if it forms part of banking business. Further, held that ...
Income Tax : Held that the deposits made by the assessee were in the nature of fixed deposit investments. Therefore, the loss suffered by the a...
Assessee challenged the disallowance before the Chennai bench of ITAT arguing that the disallowance of Rs. 134.25 crore under Section 14A was excessive and not justified because only Rs. 74.98 lakh had been spent to earn the exempt income.
ITAT Delhi rules against Instronics Limited’s bad debt claim, asserting NBFC loan was merely fund transfer, upholding Rs. 53.11 lakh disallowance.
The assessment was completed by Ld. AO u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 determining total income at Rs.2,78,46,98,694/-. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.
Kerala High Court held that even after 01.04.2010, Bank would be entitled to the deduction envisaged u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the long term finance provided by it for construction and purchase of houses in India for residential purpose.
Delhi ITAT ruling favors G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd., allowing deduction for CENVAT Credit written off. Detailed analysis of the case and implications.
In the case of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITAT Chennai rejects AO’s disallowance of stale drafts, citing precedent and banking business nature.
Expenditure incurred by assessee should be disallowed to the extent that expenditure which had been incurred for evaluation of business opportunities that could not be said to be in line with the existing business or an extension of the existing business of assessee of manufacturing of paints and enamels.
In a recent decision, ITAT Delhi permits bad debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) by Oriental Bank of Commerce, setting aside CIT(A)’s order.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D deleted as tax free funds were more than investment made on which exempt income was earned.
ITAT Mumbai held that non-examination of the details clearly makes the order of AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, PCIT correctly assumed the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
