{"id":160,"date":"2008-09-24T08:46:32","date_gmt":"2008-09-24T08:46:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=160"},"modified":"2008-09-24T08:46:32","modified_gmt":"2008-09-24T08:46:32","slug":"cit-vs-hcl-comnet-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-hcl-comnet-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. HCL Comnet (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/dlmonitor\/download.php?t=f&#038;i=98\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the &#8220;book profits&#8221; for purposes of section 115JA because they merely represent the dimunition in the value of an asset and are not a provision for an unascertained liability. <\/p>\n<p>Note: The judgements in <strong>Echjay Forgings<\/strong> 251 ITR 15 (Bom), <strong>Amines &#038; Plasticizers<\/strong> 296 ITR 727 (Gau) and <strong>Usha Martin<\/strong> 104 ITD 249 (Kol) (SB) stand impliedly approved while that in <strong>Beardsell<\/strong> 244 ITR 256 (Mad) stands impliedly overruled. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the &#8220;book profits&#8221; for purposes of section 115JA because they merely represent the dimunition in the value of an asset and are not a provision for an unascertained liability. <\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-hcl-comnet-supreme-court\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=160"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}