<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (11) TMI 94 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252777</link>
    <description>Unrealised interest on non-performing assets was treated as non-taxable on accrual where recovery was doubtful, applying the real income principle despite mercantile accounting, and a limited direction to verify the quantum was held within appellate jurisdiction. The provision for NPAs was accepted as a deduction as a provision for bad and doubtful debts made in line with RBI prudential norms. Audit fees were allowed on accrual because the liability had crystallised under the service rules. A verification direction on TDS for building rent under section 40(a)(ia) was also treated as within jurisdiction because it only checked for prior payment and avoided double disallowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2014 13:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 94 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252777</link>
      <description>Unrealised interest on non-performing assets was treated as non-taxable on accrual where recovery was doubtful, applying the real income principle despite mercantile accounting, and a limited direction to verify the quantum was held within appellate jurisdiction. The provision for NPAs was accepted as a deduction as a provision for bad and doubtful debts made in line with RBI prudential norms. Audit fees were allowed on accrual because the liability had crystallised under the service rules. A verification direction on TDS for building rent under section 40(a)(ia) was also treated as within jurisdiction because it only checked for prior payment and avoided double disallowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>