1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>ITAT upholds CIT(A) decisions on loan write-off, gratuity premium, and intangible assets depreciation. (A)</h1> The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues, dismissing both the revenue and the assessee's appeals. The disallowance of the loan write-off was ... - Issues Involved:1. Deduction of Gratuity Premium Payment2. Depreciation on Intangible Assets3. Disallowance of Loan Amount Written OffSummary:1. Deduction of Gratuity Premium Payment:The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction of Rs. 4,57,215/- paid towards Group Gratuity Life Insurance Scheme, citing the lack of approval from the Commissioner of Income-tax as required u/s 36(1)(v) of the IT Act. The AO also rejected the claim u/s 37. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, referencing previous ITAT and High Court decisions, which held that payments towards an unapproved gratuity fund could be deducted u/s 37. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal.2. Depreciation on Intangible Assets:The AO denied the depreciation claim on intangible assets amounting to Rs. 58,78,633/-, asserting that the additional amount paid was to compensate the shareholders of the amalgamating company and not for any 'intangible assets'. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, supported by previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case and other relevant case laws. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this issue.3. Disallowance of Loan Amount Written Off:The AO disallowed the write-off of Rs. 2,27,52,698/- as a bad debt or u/s 37, arguing that the debt did not arise from the assessee's business activities but was an investment in a subsidiary. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's decision, rejecting the assessee's reliance on the Tainwala Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd. case. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, referencing the VST Industries Ltd. case, and dismissed the assessee's appeal.Conclusion:Both the appeals by the revenue and the assessee were dismissed. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues, maintaining the disallowance of the loan write-off and allowing the deductions for gratuity premium payment and depreciation on intangible assets.