https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780494 ITAT, Mumbai (AT) upheld the appellate order allowing the assessee's bad-debt deduction under s.36(1)(vii) since it did not exceed the credit balance of provisions under s.36(1)(viia)(c), rejecting revenue's disallowance. Disallowance under s.14A was limited to the suo-motu pro rata amount already made by the assessee; AO was directed not to increase it. Deduction under s.36(1)(viii) was held independent of s.36(1)(viia) and sustained as claimed. Claim for amortized lease premium was remitted to AO for fresh consideration in light of Form-8 under s.158A, with opportunity to be heard. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780494 ITAT, Mumbai (AT) upheld the appellate order allowing the assessee's bad-debt deduction under s.36(1)(vii) since it did not exceed the credit balance of provisions under s.36(1)(viia)(c), rejecting revenue's disallowance. Disallowance under s.14A was limited to the suo-motu pro rata amount already made by the assessee; AO was directed not to increase it. Deduction under s.36(1)(viii) was held independent of s.36(1)(viia) and sustained as claimed. Claim for amortized lease premium was remitted to AO for fresh consideration in light of Form-8 under s.158A, with opportunity to be heard. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780494