https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758043 ITAT Chennai allowed assessee's appeal on prepaid finance charges, following its own precedent from AY 2011-12 that such charges should be deducted in the year of payment despite being treated as deferred revenue expenditure in books. The Tribunal also deleted addition of excess interest spread income from assignment of receivables, following its decision in assessee's case for AY 2016-17. However, it upheld disallowance of excess provision for bad debts under section 36(1)(viia)(d), clarifying that 5% limit is maximum ceiling, not mandatory deduction amount. Alternative claim regarding reversal of provision for standard assets was remanded to AO for fresh examination. en-us Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2024 07:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758043 ITAT Chennai allowed assessee's appeal on prepaid finance charges, following its own precedent from AY 2011-12 that such charges should be deducted in the year of payment despite being treated as deferred revenue expenditure in books. The Tribunal also deleted addition of excess interest spread income from assignment of receivables, following its decision in assessee's case for AY 2016-17. However, it upheld disallowance of excess provision for bad debts under section 36(1)(viia)(d), clarifying that 5% limit is maximum ceiling, not mandatory deduction amount. Alternative claim regarding reversal of provision for standard assets was remanded to AO for fresh examination. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758043