Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Provision for loss on investment is not a revenue obligation for the year and not eligible for deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. It represents a portion of investment capital, not falling under the block of assets defined in Section 2(11), thus ineligible for depreciation deduction. Allowing such provision fails the test prescribed u/s 37(1). There is no discretion for tax authorities to allow deduction for an inadmissible item. The item was glaringly appearing on financial statements but overlooked by the Assessing Officer while framing assessment u/s 143(3). The audit objection notified this obvious mistake, which was rectified u/s 154 after due process. Rectification of a mistake apparent on record, not requiring examination or verification, falls within the ambit of Section 154, as per the Supreme Court's ratio in TS Balram (ITO) Vs M/s Volkart Bros. The Tribunal upheld the rectification order, setting aside the impugned order.
Provision for loss on investment is not a revenue obligation for the year and not eligible for deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. It represents a portion of investment capital, not falling under the block of assets defined in Section 2(11), thus ineligible for depreciation deduction. Allowing such provision fails the test prescribed u/s 37(1). There is no discretion for tax authorities to allow deduction for an inadmissible item. The item was glaringly appearing on financial statements but overlooked by the Assessing Officer while framing assessment u/s 143(3). The audit objection notified this obvious mistake, which was rectified u/s 154 after due process. Rectification of a mistake apparent on record, not requiring examination or verification, falls within the ambit of Section 154, as per the Supreme Court's ratio in TS Balram (ITO) Vs M/s Volkart Bros. The Tribunal upheld the rectification order, setting aside the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
