Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The case involves rectification u/s 154 for disallowance of bad debts provisions u/s 36(1)(viia) in a co-operative bank's computation sheet. ITAT held that the mistake was apparent as the provision was not in the books. CIT(A) noted rectification requires a glaring mistake of law. ITAT found the claim ineligible and rectified u/s 154. CIT(A) noted a similar deduction in a subsequent year but the provision was duly accounted for. AR argued for deduction based on Companies Act provisions, but ITAT found no support for allowing the claim if not in books. Following precedent, ITAT remitted the matter to AO to allow deduction based on actual provision made in books. Revenue's appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The case involves rectification u/s 154 for disallowance of bad debts provisions u/s 36(1)(viia) in a co-operative bank's computation sheet. ITAT held that the mistake was apparent as the provision was not in the books. CIT(A) noted rectification requires a glaring mistake of law. ITAT found the claim ineligible and rectified u/s 154. CIT(A) noted a similar deduction in a subsequent year but the provision was duly accounted for. AR argued for deduction based on Companies Act provisions, but ITAT found no support for allowing the claim if not in books. Following precedent, ITAT remitted the matter to AO to allow deduction based on actual provision made in books. Revenue's appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
