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 Delhi rules against Instronics Limited's bad debt claim, asserting NBFC loan was merely fund transfer, upholding Rs. 53.11 la...
Income Tax : 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...
Income Tax : 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 Incom...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT ruling favors G-Tekt India Pvt. Ltd., allowing deduction for CENVAT Credit written off. Detailed analysis of the case a...
Income Tax : In the case of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITAT Chennai rejects AO's disallowance of stale drafts, citing precedent and bankin...
ITAT Bangalore held that it is not necessary for assessee to establish that the debt, in fact has become irrecoverable; it enough if bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the hooks of accounts of assessee.
Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The solitary ground is directed against the addition of Rs.94,33,788/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Brief facts as noted from the impugned order are that an addition u/s 36(1)(va) has been made by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore on account of delay in depositing the […]
Section 36 – Other Deductions Section 36 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, provides a list of explicit deductions for computing income arising from profession or business. Section 36 of the Income Tax Act elucidates the expenses which are allowed as deductions from the income earned from profession or business. illustrative list of expenses […]
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.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT(2010) 323 ITR 397:190 Taxman 391(SC), that for an assessee to claim deduction in relation to bad debts it is, now, no longer necessary to establish that debt had become irrecoverable and it is sufficient if assessee forms such an opinion and writes off debt as irrecoverable in its accounts.
PCIT Vs Hybrid Financial Services Ltd (Bombay High Court) Under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the amount of any bad debt or any part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year is to be allowed as deduction in computing income under Section 28 of the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in law for for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong ?
The issue under consideration is that whether deduction u/s 80-IC will be allowed against service charges since services rendered were part of business and also involved manufacturing activity?
In this discussion, we would take up Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and analyse the provision therein from all facets, which will make us understand the deduction in a comprehensive way. In the vortex of legal pronouncements, we will analyse few case laws as well, which throw light on the grey areas that are not captured or construed in the tax legislation.
Where assessee paid interest on term loan which had entirely been used for purpose of purchasing the assets for purpose of business which were hypothecated to bank and it had sufficient interest-free funds to take care of advances, the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was allowable.
The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee advanced a sum of Rs. 2 crores on 20.5.1992 to Broker Shri.Pallav Sheth under portfolio management scheme. The said broker is supposed to manage the trading portfolio of shares and securities on behalf of the assessee.
