https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757893 ITAT Ahmedabad partially allowed the appeal. For R&D expenses under Section 35(2AB), the matter was remanded to AO to verify actual expenditure without relying solely on DSIR approval, as assessee's claimed deduction amount was inconsistent with filed details. Interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted since assessee had substantial interest-free funds including surplus reserves and fresh share premium that could have been used for CWIP. Capital loss disallowance was upheld as the unreconciled CWIP addition couldn't establish actual capital loss. Commission payment issue under Section 40(a)(ia) was remanded to CIT(A) for merit examination. Bad debt provision disallowance was upheld as debt wasn't actually written off during the relevant year, failing Section 36(1)(vii) requirements. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2024 08:19:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757893 ITAT Ahmedabad partially allowed the appeal. For R&D expenses under Section 35(2AB), the matter was remanded to AO to verify actual expenditure without relying solely on DSIR approval, as assessee's claimed deduction amount was inconsistent with filed details. Interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted since assessee had substantial interest-free funds including surplus reserves and fresh share premium that could have been used for CWIP. Capital loss disallowance was upheld as the unreconciled CWIP addition couldn't establish actual capital loss. Commission payment issue under Section 40(a)(ia) was remanded to CIT(A) for merit examination. Bad debt provision disallowance was upheld as debt wasn't actually written off during the relevant year, failing Section 36(1)(vii) requirements. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757893