S. 36(1)(vii): Bad debt-Amount of unreconciled debtors written off-Allowable as bad debt. [S. 36(2)]
Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 58 /121 ITR 195 / 174 taxmann.com 100 (Bang) (Trib)S. 36(1)(vii): Bad debt-Amount of unreconciled debtors written off-Allowable as bad debt. [S. 36(2)]
Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 58 /121 ITR 195 / 174 taxmann.com 100 (Bang) (Trib)S. 32: Depreciation-Goodwill-Amalgamation-Purchase method-AS 14-Provisions of sixth proviso to s. 32(1), Expln. 7 to s. 43(1) and Expln. 2(b) to s. 43(6) has no applicability to the facts of the case-Amendment made vide Finance Act, 2021, in relation to the allowance of depreciation on goodwill is effective from 1st April, 2021 and is applicable to asst. yr. 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years-Entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill arising on account of amalgamation-Customer relationship or distribution network-existing in the books of the amalgamating company-Fair value of these assets was specifically computed by the independent valuer vide his valuation report-The AO is directed to grant depreciation on “customer relationship” and “distribution network” arising on account of amalgamation. [S. 32(1), 43(1)]
Dow Chemical International (P) Ltd. v. DCIT 2024] 169 taxmann.com 290 / (2025) 234 TTJ 712 (Mum)(Trib)S. 28(i) : Business loss-Fixed deposits held by the assessee-bank with another bank written off—Allowable as business loss.
Surat National Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 529 / (Surat)(Trib)S. 28(i): Business loss-Overstated bank balance written off— Allowable as business loss.
Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 58 /121 ITR 195 / 174 taxmann.com 100 (Bang) (Trib)S. 17(2): Salary-Perquisite-Personal expenses of director-Paid through the credit card of the company-Disallowed in the assessment of company-Can not be taxed again in hands of assessee-director as perquisite under section 2(24)(iv).[S. 2(24)iv), 28(iv), 37(1)]
Mecca Rafeeque Ahmed v. ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 691 / 172 taxmann.com 160 (Chennai)(Trib) Israr Ahmed v. ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 691 / 172 taxmann.com 160 (Chennai)(Trib) Ashifaque Ahmed Mecca v. v. ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 691 / 172 taxmann.com 160 (Chennai)(Trib)S. 270A: Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Vagueness of notice was not accepted-Partly allowed the relief on quantum addition-Assessing Officer was directed to modify the order after giving effect to the order. [S. 43B, 274]
Magnaquest Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 146/ 238 TTJ 920 (Hyd) (Trib.)S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Excess stock-Survey-Additional income was offered-Specific queries raised by Assessing Officer and had explained that the only source of income of assessee was from business-Revision order of CIT for not invoking provision of section 115 BBE was quashed and set aside.[S. 28(i), 69, 115BBE, 133A, 143(3)]
Akashdeep Cloth Centre. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 597 (Pune) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Purchase of immovable property-Below circle rate-Sale consideration and DVO-determined FMV for assessee’s share was within permissible 10 per cent variation-CBDT Circular No. 8/2018-Revision by PCIT treating variation as taxable and Circular as prospective was an unsustainable, change of opinion not supported by law-Revision order was quashed. [S.50C, 56(2)(viib), 143(3), 147]
Mamta Agarwal. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 553 (Agra) (Trib.)S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Charitable purpose-Objects of general public utility-Providing a platform for conducting transactions of member banks-Charging only nominal fees to recover cost of infrastructure and operations-Assessing Officer, after making specific inquiries, allowed exemption under section 11-Revision order was quashed and set aside.[S. 2(15), 11, 12, Companies Act, 1956, S. 25]
National Payments Corporation of India. v. CIT (E) (2025) 215 ITD 350 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Expenditure on scientific research-DSIR’s quantification of eligible R&D expenditure in Form 3CL was mandatory-Failure to quantify the deduction-assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. [S. 35(2AB),143(3), R.6(7A)]
Pharmanza Herbal (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 273 (Ahd) (Trib.)