TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The ITAT held that debt forgiveness pursuant to a Settlement Agreement cannot be taxed under section 28(iv) as it constitutes a monetary benefit, not a benefit in kind as required by the provision. Following CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, the Tribunal ruled that section 41(1) was also inapplicable as the forgiven debt was not a trading liability for which allowance or deduction had been previously claimed. The ITAT further determined that the benefit could not be characterized as business profits under section 28(i). Additionally, since the assessment for AY 2011-12 was unabated at the time of search under section 132, the assessee's fresh claim for expenditure deduction not based on incriminating material found during search was disallowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
