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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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