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...
The Tribunal held that a bad debt claim involving factual and legal analysis cannot be disallowed during section 143(1) processing. Such issues must be examined through regular assessment proceedings, not summary adjustments.
The Court held that dividend income, bank-deposit interest, and SDF service charges are not derived from long-term finance. Only direct lending profits qualify for the deduction.
Tribunal held that a provision for bad debts need not be routed through the Profit & Loss account in the first eligible year under Section 36(1)(viia). The disallowance was deleted as the audited statements reflected the provision as on 31.03.2007.
ITAT held that ₹1.5 Cr advance for a real estate project, which became irrecoverable, qualifies as a trading loss under section 28. The decision reverses AO and CIT(A) disallowances, allowing the loss as a business expense.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that banks can claim deductions for provisions for bad debts on total income, including capital gains, rejecting the CIT’s restriction to business income.
The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s order, confirming deletion of additions related to unexplained creditors, GST, bogus purchases, and purchase differences. Proper reconciliation and supporting documents established genuineness, highlighting the importance of maintaining accurate records.
The ITAT sent back the issue of carry-forward business losses for re-examination because assessment records did not clarify earlier allowances. Key takeaway: loss set-off must be verified year-by-year before denial.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the allowance of management fees after verifying proper documentation and business purpose, emphasizing that payments to a parent company are deductible if fully supported.
ITAT held that criminal and departmental actions against former office bearers justified the 204-day delay. Assessment was remanded because additions were made without examining evidence.
The ITAT Bangalore confirmed that an initial order’s failure to consider a binding High Court ruling on bad debt deductibility constitutes a mistake apparent from record. This allowed the bank to claim a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for non-rural bad debts via rectification, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. The key takeaway is that disregarding settled jurisdictional law is a rectifiable error, not a debatable issue.
