Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding disallowance of advance written-off as bad debt. Tribunal held that even if advance write-off was not allowable as bad debt under relevant provisions, it qualified as allowable business loss under Section 37(1) or Section 28(1) of the Act. The advance was made for business expediency in ordinary course of business and constituted genuine transaction, not sham or accommodation entry. Assessing Officer failed to establish cogent reasons for disallowance despite burden being on revenue authority. Tribunal also allowed deduction of prior period expenses including insurance premium and service charges, following precedent where revenue could not disprove crystallization of liability during relevant assessment year. Both grounds of appeal were allowed in favor of appellant.
ITAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding disallowance of advance written-off as bad debt. Tribunal held that even if advance write-off was not allowable as bad debt under relevant provisions, it qualified as allowable business loss under Section 37(1) or Section 28(1) of the Act. The advance was made for business expediency in ordinary course of business and constituted genuine transaction, not sham or accommodation entry. Assessing Officer failed to establish cogent reasons for disallowance despite burden being on revenue authority. Tribunal also allowed deduction of prior period expenses including insurance premium and service charges, following precedent where revenue could not disprove crystallization of liability during relevant assessment year. Both grounds of appeal were allowed in favor of appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
