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...
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.
Loss of ₹7.66 Crore was allowable as bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), recognising the loss as a genuine business loss arising from NSEL’s operational suspension.
The Mumbai ITAT upheld the deletion of a disallowance for bad debts, confirming that deductions under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are independent. The ruling followed the Supreme Court’s precedent, allowing the entire bad debt written off since no double deduction was claimed.
The Tribunal confirmed a co-operative banks use of a mixed accounting system (mercantile/receipt basis) for NPA interest, prioritizing consistency and adherence to RBI/NABARD prudential norms over the AOs theoretical objection. This ruling solidifies that regulatory requirements trump mechanical accounting changes.
Tribunal held that write-off of ₹9.56 crore foreign investment in USA subsidiary was incurred for commercial expediency and business expansion, qualifying as business loss under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai allows a partnership firm to claim a bad debt deduction of ₹23.10 lakh, ruling that losses from employee fraud are a genuine business loss. The decision highlights that an FIR and book entries are sufficient evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that trade receivable shown as net of provision for doubtful debts would not be hit by section 115JB(i) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition of provision of bad and doubtful debts to book profits computed u/s. 115JB not sustained.
