<?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>Commercial expediency, bad debt write-off, and actual payment deductions require proper factual verification before relief is granted.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98746</link>
    <description>The HC set aside deletions of additions relating to notional interest on advances to subsidiaries, holding that the assessee&#039;s reliance on commercial expediency and its later omission to charge interest had not been properly verified and required fresh examination by the appellate authority. It also held that a bad debt claim could not be allowed without an actual write-off in the accounts after 01.04.1989, with party-wise details and relevant records needed to apply the Supreme Court authorities correctly; that issue was remitted for reconsideration. Relief on the amount debited to the share premium account was likewise set aside because the factual basis for deletion under the actual payment requirement was inadequate, and the matter was remanded to the CIT (Appeals).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Commercial expediency, bad debt write-off, and actual payment deductions require proper factual verification before relief is granted.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98746</link>
      <description>The HC set aside deletions of additions relating to notional interest on advances to subsidiaries, holding that the assessee&#039;s reliance on commercial expediency and its later omission to charge interest had not been properly verified and required fresh examination by the appellate authority. It also held that a bad debt claim could not be allowed without an actual write-off in the accounts after 01.04.1989, with party-wise details and relevant records needed to apply the Supreme Court authorities correctly; that issue was remitted for reconsideration. Relief on the amount debited to the share premium account was likewise set aside because the factual basis for deletion under the actual payment requirement was inadequate, and the matter was remanded to the CIT (Appeals).</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>