<?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>CSR allowed u/s 80G despite s37(1) bar; s50 capital loss, gold stock addition issues remanded/upheld examined</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94912</link>
    <description>ITAT held that CSR payments, though disallowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), may still qualify for deduction u/s 80G when computing total taxable income, subject to statutory conditions, and that denying such deduction would amount to impermissible double disallowance. The issue of quantum and eligibility u/s 80G was remanded to AO for verification. On short-term capital loss from building, ITAT held that allowability depends on whether the sold asset was the sole asset in the relevant block u/s 50, and remanded the matter to AO for factual verification. Deletion by CIT(A) of addition for alleged excess 24KT gold stock was upheld, and Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=870459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CSR allowed u/s 80G despite s37(1) bar; s50 capital loss, gold stock addition issues remanded/upheld examined</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94912</link>
      <description>ITAT held that CSR payments, though disallowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), may still qualify for deduction u/s 80G when computing total taxable income, subject to statutory conditions, and that denying such deduction would amount to impermissible double disallowance. The issue of quantum and eligibility u/s 80G was remanded to AO for verification. On short-term capital loss from building, ITAT held that allowability depends on whether the sold asset was the sole asset in the relevant block u/s 50, and remanded the matter to AO for factual verification. Deletion by CIT(A) of addition for alleged excess 24KT gold stock was upheld, and Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:41:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>