ADA CELLWORKS WIRELESS ENGG. P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1494/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 November 2020AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of a provision for trade receivables. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the disallowance of provision for trade receivables. The assessee later chose to withdraw the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(vii),Section 37(1),Section 28

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI

O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP:

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has called into question correctness of the order dated 11th January 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Grievance of the assessee appellant is as follows: GROUND I: DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR TRADE RECEIVABLE AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,09,55,966/- UNDER SECTION 36(1)(vii) OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the provision made for trade receivables amounting to Rs.

Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 2 of 3 7,09,55,966/-under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, on the alleged ground that it is not actual bad debts. 2. The Appellant prays that the disallowance amounting to Rs. 7,09,55,966/-, in respect of provision for trade receivables be deleted.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I ABOVE. GROUND II: DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR TRADE RECEIVABLE AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,09,55,966/- UNDER SECTION 37(1) OR SECTION 28 OF THE ACT:

1. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the provision made for trade receivables amounting to Rs. 7,09,55,966/-under section 37(1) of the Act.

2. The Appellant prays that if the provision for trade receivables is not allowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, then the same shall be allowed as a business expenditure under section 37(1) or as a business loss under section 28 of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I AND GROUND II ABOVE, GROUND III : On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law if the said expenditure is not allowed in the current year, Appellant prays that the A.O. be directed to allow the expenditure in the year in which the individual account of the debtor are squared off.

3.

The appeal was called for the hearing. Our attention was invited to the letter dated 13th August, 2020 filed by the appellant seeking permission to withdraw this appeal.

4.

The Ld. DR does not oppose to the prayers so made by the assessee. 5. In view of the above position, we deem it fit and proper to permit to withdraw the aforesaid appeal. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Pronounced in the open court today on the 27th November , 2020 Sd/ Sd/- Mahavir Singh Pramod Kumar (Vice President) (Vice President) Mumbai, dated the 27th day of November, 2020

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 →