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...
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.
The Tribunal held that estimating commission income without corroborative evidence is unsustainable. Audited accounts and consistent interest income showed genuine business activity, leading to deletion of the addition.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of bad debts claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is not justifiable if offered as income in any year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify that amount for which bad debts have claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) were indeed offered as income for the said years.
The issue was whether long-term financing income qualified for deduction despite reclassification of receipts. The Tribunal held the entity eligible, citing statutory changes, past approvals, and consistency across years.
Chennai ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order under Section 263, confirming that when the AO adopts a plausible view and conducts proper scrutiny, revision is unwarranted.
