<?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>2026 (1) TMI 1407 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785651</link>
    <description>Bad debts written off were treated as deductible where the amounts had earlier been taken into account and the statutory conditions were satisfied; the demand for debtor PAN details was held unnecessary once the write-off was properly recorded. Advances written off to a subsidiary were treated as allowable business loss because they were made for business purposes and the write-off reflected commercial expediency. Transponder charges paid to a non-resident were held not to be royalty, as the payer received only transmission capacity and did not use or control equipment; with no permanent establishment in India, no withholding obligation arose and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:51:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=881950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1407 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785651</link>
      <description>Bad debts written off were treated as deductible where the amounts had earlier been taken into account and the statutory conditions were satisfied; the demand for debtor PAN details was held unnecessary once the write-off was properly recorded. Advances written off to a subsidiary were treated as allowable business loss because they were made for business purposes and the write-off reflected commercial expediency. Transponder charges paid to a non-resident were held not to be royalty, as the payer received only transmission capacity and did not use or control equipment; with no permanent establishment in India, no withholding obligation arose and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>