DCIT-15.1.2, MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. ISPAT INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1502/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 September 2025Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues of bad debts, operator expenses, and motor car/telephone expenses to the AO for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that while some evidence was produced, it was not sufficiently examined by the AO or CIT(A), and granted the assessee an opportunity to furnish complete details.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowances made by the AO on bad debts, labour expenses, operator expenses, and motor car/telephone expenses. The assessee claimed bad debts of Rs. 2,23,73,875/- but did not provide sufficient evidence, and for other expenses, the AO disallowed them due to lack of documentation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowances without proper examination of evidence by the AO, and whether the assessee provided sufficient proof for claimed expenses and bad debts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 36(1)(vii),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 36(2),Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYASHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Vora
For Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr.DR

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 27.12.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: – “1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of bad debts claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) without requiring the assessee to prove the actual irrecoverability of the debt, despite the settled position that mere boo

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(vii)

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →