SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied the conditions for claiming bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on the disallowance of bad debts.
What were the facts?
The assessee advanced interest-free loans to group companies while borrowing funds and paying interest. The assessee also claimed a deduction for bad debts written off. The Assessing Officer disallowed proportionate interest and the bad debt claim, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether interest on borrowed funds advanced as interest-free loans to group companies is disallowable under Section 36(1)(iii), and whether the bad debt written off is eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 36(1)(iii),Section 36(1)(vii),Section 36(2),Section 153A,Section 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide 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.
- S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT1,484 citing288 ITR 1 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- TRF Ltd. v. CIT714 citing323 ITR 397 · 2010 · SC
- Punjab Stainless Steel Inds v. CIT66 citing324 ITR 396 · 2010 · HC
- A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT27 citing48 ITR 67 · 1963 · SC · Read judgment
- Tirupati Trading Co. v. CIT8 citing242 ITR 13 · 2000
- CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co.6 citing102 ITR 604 · 1985 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE
PER MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against common order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, dated 31.10.2023 and pertains to assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22. Since facts and identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed o
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.
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)(iii)
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shah Brothers, West Singhbhum vs ACIT/DCIT, Cen Cir-1, RanchiITA 239/RAN/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026