https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383624 Additional evidence on the non-performing assets deduction under section 36(1)(viia) required verification of the branch population and classification facts, so the disallowance was set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication. The leave encashment disallowance was treated as covered by binding Supreme Court precedent in Exide Industries and was also remitted for decision in accordance with that ruling. The claim for provision relating to the difference between the General Ledger and Detailed Ledger was held to be an unreconciled accounting difference, not an ascertained liability, and the disallowance was upheld. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383624 Additional evidence on the non-performing assets deduction under section 36(1)(viia) required verification of the branch population and classification facts, so the disallowance was set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication. The leave encashment disallowance was treated as covered by binding Supreme Court precedent in Exide Industries and was also remitted for decision in accordance with that ruling. The claim for provision relating to the difference between the General Ledger and Detailed Ledger was held to be an unreconciled accounting difference, not an ascertained liability, and the disallowance was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383624