<?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>2020 (10) TMI 658 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399684</link>
    <description>The ITAT Pune ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the addition of excess provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts Reserve (BDDR) to the total income was unjustified. Since no deductions were claimed in relation to the BDDR provisions, the reversal of BDDR in subsequent years should not be taxed. The ITAT Pune directed the deletion of the added amount from the total income, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. An additional ground regarding interest charges under sections 234B and 234C was deemed infructuous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:39:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 658 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399684</link>
      <description>The ITAT Pune ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the addition of excess provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts Reserve (BDDR) to the total income was unjustified. Since no deductions were claimed in relation to the BDDR provisions, the reversal of BDDR in subsequent years should not be taxed. The ITAT Pune directed the deletion of the added amount from the total income, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. An additional ground regarding interest charges under sections 234B and 234C was deemed infructuous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>