Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
ITAT affirmed that the assessee is entitled to deductions under both s.36(1)(vii) and s.36(1)(viia)(c), holding the proviso to s.36(1)(vii) merely caps bad-debt write-offs by the credit balance in provisions to prevent double deduction; factual review showed no excess or duplication, so CIT(A)'s allowance was upheld. On s.14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to confine disallowance to the assessee's suo-motu pro-rata allocation to investment-department costs, rejecting the AO's challenge absent specific contrary accounting findings. Deductions under s.36(1)(viii) were held independent of s.36(1)(viia)(c) computations. The amortised rent issue was remitted to the AO for reconsideration under s.158A upon Form-8 compliance.
ITAT affirmed that the assessee is entitled to deductions under both s.36(1)(vii) and s.36(1)(viia)(c), holding the proviso to s.36(1)(vii) merely caps bad-debt write-offs by the credit balance in provisions to prevent double deduction; factual review showed no excess or duplication, so CIT(A)'s allowance was upheld. On s.14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to confine disallowance to the assessee's suo-motu pro-rata allocation to investment-department costs, rejecting the AO's challenge absent specific contrary accounting findings. Deductions under s.36(1)(viii) were held independent of s.36(1)(viia)(c) computations. The amortised rent issue was remitted to the AO for reconsideration under s.158A upon Form-8 compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
