<?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>2023 (8) TMI 1616 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460605</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple issues. The tribunal held that facility management service expenses with unrelated parties cannot be disallowed based on business expediency grounds, as AO lacks power to judge commercial prudence of arm&#039;s length transactions. Branch allocation expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure since unified business operations justify expenses regardless of branch-specific revenue generation. Bad debt claims were permitted where assessee demonstrated recovery efforts through communications and follow-ups, meeting Section 36(1)(iii) requirements. However, disallowance for delayed provident fund and ESI payments was sustained against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1616 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460605</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple issues. The tribunal held that facility management service expenses with unrelated parties cannot be disallowed based on business expediency grounds, as AO lacks power to judge commercial prudence of arm&#039;s length transactions. Branch allocation expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure since unified business operations justify expenses regardless of branch-specific revenue generation. Bad debt claims were permitted where assessee demonstrated recovery efforts through communications and follow-ups, meeting Section 36(1)(iii) requirements. However, disallowance for delayed provident fund and ESI payments was sustained against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>