<?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 (7) TMI 195 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794309</link>
    <description>Trade receivables arising from invoices for ices rendered were written off in the books, and the related income had already been offered to tax; on that basis, the deduction as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) was allowable. The claim could not be rejected merely because actual irrecoverability was not separately proved, and the disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:49:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 195 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794309</link>
      <description>Trade receivables arising from invoices for ices rendered were written off in the books, and the related income had already been offered to tax; on that basis, the deduction as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) was allowable. The claim could not be rejected merely because actual irrecoverability was not separately proved, and the disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>