https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404546 The court held that the appellant was not entitled to the reduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. It acknowledged the retrospective amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 but emphasized that compliance could not be expected for prior years. The court found that the appellant had added back the provision for certain years and should have been granted the deduction. Additionally, it reiterated that indirect expenditure disallowed under Section 14A cannot be added back for the computation of book profit under MAT provisions. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee based on precedent. en-us Fri, 05 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:11:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404546 The court held that the appellant was not entitled to the reduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. It acknowledged the retrospective amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 but emphasized that compliance could not be expected for prior years. The court found that the appellant had added back the provision for certain years and should have been granted the deduction. Additionally, it reiterated that indirect expenditure disallowed under Section 14A cannot be added back for the computation of book profit under MAT provisions. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee based on precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404546