https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754413 The ITAT PUNE allowed the appeal on two issues. First, regarding addition under section 36(1)(viia)(d) for contingent provision against standard assets, the tribunal found that both AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the Finance Act 2016 provisions effective from 01.04.2017, which allows NBFCs to make provisions for bad debts up to 5% of total income. The matter was remanded to AO for fresh adjudication. Second, concerning addition under section 68 for cash received during demonetization, the tribunal held that since AO did not challenge the identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of depositors despite assessee maintaining KYC documents, no addition was warranted. Both issues were decided in favor of the assessee. en-us Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:12:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754413 The ITAT PUNE allowed the appeal on two issues. First, regarding addition under section 36(1)(viia)(d) for contingent provision against standard assets, the tribunal found that both AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the Finance Act 2016 provisions effective from 01.04.2017, which allows NBFCs to make provisions for bad debts up to 5% of total income. The matter was remanded to AO for fresh adjudication. Second, concerning addition under section 68 for cash received during demonetization, the tribunal held that since AO did not challenge the identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of depositors despite assessee maintaining KYC documents, no addition was warranted. Both issues were decided in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754413