Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
