Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 32 "Other deductions" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      18 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 32 Other deductions.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Clause 32 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) enumerates "other deductions" allowable in computing income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" (section 26). It matters for taxpayers engaged in business or profession, and for financial institutions and specified entities claiming sector-specific deductions. The Bill-version text is an earlier iteration; Document does not state an explicit effective date or enactment date. Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 32 is framed as a provision of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, dealing with deductions from income u/s 26 (Profits and gains of business or profession). The provision enumerates categories of deductible amounts (sub-clauses (a)-(k)) and provides definitions and scope for certain specialised deductions (notably clause (e) dealing with a special reserve for specified entities and clause (d) dealing with pro rata discount on zero coupon bonds).

      The Bill text supplies several intra-clause definitions (e.g., "specified entity", "eligible business", "infrastructure facility", "discount", "period of life of bond") and cross-references to other statutory provisions (e.g., sections 2(72) of the Companies Act, 2013; Explanation to section 80-IA(4)(i); sections 80-IA, Section 80-IB and other provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961). It also refers to income computation and disclosure standards u/s 276(2).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 32 lists deductible amounts allowed in computing business income. Key categories include:

      • Bonus/commission to employees (sub-clause (a)) - allowed provided the sum would not have been payable as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission.
      • Interest on capital borrowed for business/profession (sub-clause (b)) - with an express exclusion: interest on capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset is not deductible for the period from borrowing until the asset is first put to use; and recurring subscriptions in specified Mutual Benefit Societies may be deemed capital borrowed.
      • Contribution by a public financial institution to a credit guarantee fund trust for small industries (sub-clause (c)) - allowed as per Central Government notification.
      • Pro rata amount of discount on zero coupon bonds (sub-clause (d)) - payable to specified issuers and to be calculated in a prescribed manner; definitions of "discount" and "period of life of bond" are provided.
      • Amounts carried to a special reserve by "specified entities" (sub-clause (e)) - subject to a cap of 20% of eligible business profits and an overall limit tied to twice paid-up share capital plus general reserves; detailed definitions of "specified entity", "eligible business" and "infrastructure facility" are supplied.
      • Deductions for non-capital expenditure incurred by statutory corporations/body corporates established by Central/State/Provincial Acts, if notified by Central Government and incurred for authorised objects (sub-clause (f)).
      • Expenditure by co-operative sugar manufacturers on purchase of sugarcane at prices not exceeding government-fixed/approved prices (sub-clause (g)).
      • Marked-to-market loss or other expected loss as computed per income computation and disclosure standards u/s 276(2)(sub-clause (h)); the Bill expressly adds that no deduction or allowance for such loss shall be allowed under any other provision of the Act.
      • Expenditure by companies for promoting family planning among employees (sub-clause (i)) - with capital part amortised over five years (one-fifth in year of incurrence), and applicability of specified sections ( 33(11) and 112(3), and specified provisions of sections 38, 39 and 45) as they apply to scientific research assets.
      • Loss on animals that die or become permanently useless - allowance being the difference between cost and realisation on carcass (sub-clause (j)).
      • Payment of securities transaction tax (STT) or commodities transaction tax (CTT) where taxable transactions are entered into in the course of business and the income arising therefrom is included under the business head (sub-clause (k)).

      Interpretation

      The text indicates a legislative intent to retain traditional business deduction principles while specifying sectoral and instrument-specific treatments. Prescriptive elements (e.g., prescribed manner of computing pro rata discount; prescriptions for deeming subscriptions as capital borrowed) suggest reliance on subordinate legislation or rules for operational detail. The Bill also seeks to prevent double claims for marked-to-market or expected losses by stating exclusivity of the deduction (explicit bar on claiming it elsewhere in the Act).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Explicit carve-outs include:

      • Interest on capital borrowed for acquiring assets disallowed until asset is first put to use (temporal disallowance in clause (b)(i)).
      • Deductions in clause (e) are subject to a 20% cap and an accumulated ceiling tied to equity and reserves; excess is not deductible.
      • Family planning capital expenditure allowed by phased deduction and subject to application of specified cross-sectional provisions (clause (i)).
      • Marked-to-market/expected losses allowed only as computed under specified standards and not elsewhere (clause (h)).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A bank (a specified entity) derives eligible business profits of INR 100 crore in a tax year. It places INR 25 crore into the special reserve. Under clause (e)(i) the deduction shall not exceed 20% of profits (i.e., INR 20 crore) - therefore INR 20 crore deductible; INR 5 crore excess not allowed. (This follows the text; numerical illustration is consistent with the clause.)
      • Example 2: A manufacturing firm borrows funds to acquire plant on 1 Jan and first puts plant to use on 1 Oct; interest attributable to the period 1 Jan-1 Oct is not deductible under clause (b)(i). (Factual depiction follows textual temporal disallowance.)
      • Example 3: A trading firm incurs marked-to-market losses computed under standards notified u/s 276(2). That deduction is claimable under clause (h) but cannot be claimed again under any other provision of the Act. (Reflects the exclusivity clause in the Bill.)

      Interplay

      Clause 32 cross-references multiple provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (sections 33, 38, 39, 45, 80-IA, 80-IB) and the Companies Act, 2013 (section 2(72)). It also relies on standards to be notified u/s 276(2) and on unspecified "prescribed" rules for certain computations and deeming provisions. The text does not elaborate the procedural or rule-making framework beyond these references. Not stated in the document: the precise rules or notifications, timelines for prescriptions, or whether transitional arrangements apply.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers will need to ensure correct temporal segregation of interest on funds borrowed for asset acquisition to exclude pre-commencement interest; maintain documentary evidence for dates of borrowing and date asset first put to use. For marked-to-market/expected losses, reliance on notified income computation and disclosure standards means entities must adopt those standards precisely and avoid claiming the same loss under other provisions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: For special reserve claims (clause (e)), records establishing computation of "profits derived from an eligible business", paid-up share capital and general reserves are essential; for mutual benefit societies (clause (b)(ii)) documentation proving recurring subscriptions and satisfaction of prescribed conditions will be necessary; for family planning expenditures, capital/non-capital characterization and amortisation schedules should be maintained.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 32 consolidates a range of sector-neutral and sector-specific deductions under business income, combining standard operating deductions with targeted allowances (e.g., special reserve for specified entities).
      • Temporal disallowance of interest on borrowings for asset acquisition is expressly provided until the asset is first put to use - requiring careful tracking of dates.
      • Marked-to-market and expected losses are allowable only as computed under prescribed income computation and disclosure standards and (in the Bill) cannot be claimed under any other provision.
      • Special reserves for certain financial entities are capped at 20% of eligible business profits and subject to an accumulated ceiling related to capital and reserves.
      • Multiple cross-references to existing income-tax and companies law provisions indicate the clause is intended to operate within the broader legacy statutory framework; several operative computations are left to subordinate prescriptions.

      Differences between Clause 32 (Old Version) and Section 32 (As Passed)

      Comparative differences and their practical impact (based strictly on the two texts provided):

      • Reference to "specified entity" sub-clause (e)(C)(III): Old Bill refers to an undertaking in section 141(5) (Document 2). The As-Passed text refers to section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Document 1).
        • Practical impact: The change alters which category of undertakings qualify as "infrastructure facility" for the special reserve purpose, potentially expanding or narrowing eligibility depending on the statutory content of the cited sections. Exact practical consequence depends on the substantive definitions in the cited provisions (Not stated in the document).
      • Language and referential adjustments in definitions: Old Bill uses the phrase "as prescribed" in several places; the As-Passed text uses "as may be prescribed" or "as may be notified" in certain instances.
        • Practical impact: Minor drafting differences; "as may be prescribed" is conventionally broader/future-oriented, but documents do not set out legislative intent or differing legal effect beyond wording. Not stated in the document.
      • Marked-to-market/expected loss clause (h): Old Bill expressly adds that "no deduction or allowance for such loss shall be allowed under any other provision of this Act." The As-Passed version omits that explicit bar.
        • Practical impact: Under the Old Bill taxpayers were statutorily barred from double-claiming the same loss under other provisions; omission in the As-Passed text may permit interpretive questions about exclusivity of the deduction (though other provisions could independently limit double claims). The documents do not state legislative reasoning for the omission. Not stated in the document.
      • Family planning expenditure cross-references: Old Bill lists certain sections (including slightly different numbering and omitting section 45(10)); As-Passed text includes sections 33(11) and 112(3) and explicitly adds sections 45(6) and (10).
        • Practical impact: The As-Passed inclusion of section 45(10) could affect chargeability consequences on transfer/disposal of assets used for family planning, depending on that section's content. The documents do not state the legislative purpose for the change. Not stated in the document.
      • Terminology and minor drafting changes: e.g., Old Bill uses "sum" in (a) and "cost ... as reduced by" in (j) whereas As-Passed uses "amount" and "actual cost ... and the amount realised" respectively.
        • Practical impact: Language variations may create minor interpretive differences; substantive effect not apparent from the texts alone. Not stated in the document.

      Action Points

      • Review the final enacted text (As Passed) for the definitive wording and cross-references; reconcile eligibility for special reserve by checking the referenced sections (80-IB(10) / 141(5)) in the Income-tax Act, 1961. Not stated in the document: specific guidance on transitional treatment.
      • Ensure systems capture dates of borrowing and dates assets are first put to use for correct interest disallowance computations.
      • Adopt and document the income computation and disclosure standards u/s 276(2) once notified to substantiate marked-to-market or expected loss claims.

      Full Text:

      Section 32 Other deductions.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax