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...
Thus, penalty is not warranted on issues where a substantial question of law exists, indicating that the matter is not free from doubt. Accordingly, we quash the penalty order under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.
As a result, assessee was required to deduct TDS on payments made to Bemo. AO invoked Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on Rs. 12,69,79,006, disallowing the deduction.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is not required to prove that a particular debt had become bad debt in order to claim deduction on account of bad debt written off pursuant to the amendment made u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.1989.
Section 36(1)(vii) of ITA applied separately to non-rural debts, while Section 36(1)(viia) of the tax statute only applied to rural debts, making it clear that banks were entitled to claim both deductions, provided they pertained to different types of advances.
Bombay High Court held that the deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act is distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act relating to allowance of the bad debts.
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.
