GOLDIAM JEWELLERY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CC 1(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3272/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 November 2024AY 2018-19Bench: the hearing. At the very outset, the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee made statement at bar that he is not pressing Ground No. 1 and 3, consequently, considering his statement ground No. 1 and 3 stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. Now there remains only one ground for adjudication i.e Ground No. 2, wherein the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Ld.AO in making addition of Rs. 1,48,50,000/- on account of provision for doubtful debts clai1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if a provision for doubtful debts is debited to the profit and loss account and simultaneously reduced from the debtors' account in the balance sheet, it amounts to a write-off. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction for provision for doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed this claim, stating it was not an admissible expenditure as the debts were not written off as irrecoverable. The assessee appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether a provision for doubtful debts, when debited to the P&L account and reduced from the balance sheet, constitutes a write-off eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)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, “G” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & MS PADMAVATHY S

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jian
Hearing: 14.11.2024Pronounced: 27.11.2024

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 19.07.2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (‘Ld. CIT(A)’), for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 which is bad in law and without juri iction.

2 Goldiam Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law t

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 →