https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333144 ITAT Mumbai examined revision under section 263, eligibility for deduction under section 36(1)(viii), computation of that deduction, and whether section 36(1)(viia) covers provisions for standard assets. It held that absence of enquiry on the relevant issue made the assessment order erroneous, so revision under section 263 was valid. A banking company was not treated as an eligible financial corporation for section 36(1)(viii), and the deduction had to be recomputed by excluding non-eligible income and applying proportionate allocation to indirect costs. It further noted that section 36(1)(viia) is confined to provision for bad and doubtful debts, while the standard-assets claim required factual verification and was remanded. en-us Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333144 ITAT Mumbai examined revision under section 263, eligibility for deduction under section 36(1)(viii), computation of that deduction, and whether section 36(1)(viia) covers provisions for standard assets. It held that absence of enquiry on the relevant issue made the assessment order erroneous, so revision under section 263 was valid. A banking company was not treated as an eligible financial corporation for section 36(1)(viii), and the deduction had to be recomputed by excluding non-eligible income and applying proportionate allocation to indirect costs. It further noted that section 36(1)(viia) is confined to provision for bad and doubtful debts, while the standard-assets claim required factual verification and was remanded. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333144