A.W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

254 ITR 63High Court2002#7792 most cited

What is A.W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A business loss incurred from advances made in the course of business is allowable as a deduction, even if the possibility of recovery is slim and a suit for recovery is not pursued. The assessee can claim a bad debt deduction if they believe the advance is irrecoverable, without necessarily exhausting all legal remedies.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2023.

Also referred to as

A.W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · business loss · advance money · bad debt · Section 37 · Section 36(1)(vii) · Section 36(2) · irrecoverable advance · deduction · ITAT

Judgments citing A.W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Titagarh Wagons Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Ltu, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36

…unable to recover/adjust the same and it has claimed as business loss and the same is allowable. In such respect your attention is drawn to the following decision. " a) Mohan Meakin Ltd. V. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 109 (Del) b) A.W.Figgis & Co. P. Ltd. v CIT (2002) 254 ITR 63(Cal). (v) The submission of the assessee was examined carefully and on perusal of the facts of the case, it is found that the assessee company without putting any effort for recovery/adjust of advance money from its associated company, it has claimed expense in the form of provision of doubtful advance. The contention of the assessee as mentioned…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3455/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

…also allowable to the assessee u/s 36(1) rws 36 (2) of the act. Honourable Delhi High court also held that such deduction was also covered in 10 favour of the assessee by the decision of Honourable Calcutta High court in case of A W Figgies & Co Pvt Limited 254 ITR 63. Above decision of Honourable Delhi high court has been upheld by Hon Supreme court in CC 22330/2011 dated 13/1/2012. Further the claim of the assessee in writing off of the bad debt is on stronger footing on the cases relied up on by the assessee. In view of above facts, we confirm the order of CIT (A)in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 77,36,166…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3743/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…resaid decisions it has been held that loss of advances in the course of business are eligible for deduction u/s 37 of the I.T. Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of A.W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 63, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that despite pendency of the suit if the assessee felt that the loan could not be recovered the filing of civil suit for recovery of debt was not necessary to claim the bad debt. He submitted that in the present case, the assessee had exhausted all the remedies including the…

Sh. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3307/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…resaid decisions it has been held that loss of advances in the course of business are eligible for deduction u/s 37 of the I.T. Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of A.W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 63, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that despite pendency of the suit if the assessee felt that the loan could not be recovered the filing of civil suit for recovery of debt was not necessary to claim the bad debt. He submitted that in the present case, the assessee had exhausted all the remedies including the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 2997/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…resaid decisions it has been held that loss of advances in the course of business are eligible for deduction u/s 37 of the I.T. Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of A.W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 63, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that despite pendency of the suit if the assessee felt that the loan could not be recovered the filing of civil suit for recovery of debt was not necessary to claim the bad debt. He submitted that in the present case, the assessee had exhausted all the remedies including the…

Ashok Mittal vs. ITO, Ward-24(3)

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3764/DEL/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…resaid decisions it has been held that loss of advances in the course of business are eligible for deduction u/s 37 of the I.T. Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of A.W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 63, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that despite pendency of the suit if the assessee felt that the loan could not be recovered the filing of civil suit for recovery of debt was not necessary to claim the bad debt. He submitted that in the present case, the assessee had exhausted all the remedies including the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 259/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…Vs CIT 111 ITR 268 (SC) " Badridas Daga Vs CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) " Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 593 (Ker) " Shitla Prasad Shyam Lal Vs CIT 96 CTR 150 (All) " Kamla Cotton Company Vs CIT 226 ITR 605 (All) " A. W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 254 ITR 63 (Cal) ITA Nos. 258 & 259/Del/2013 Timex Watches Ltd. 18. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the amount was fraudulently withdrawn from the accounts of the assessee who made out efforts to money back by filing the suit against the bank and that the account from which the money was withdrawn fraudulently…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 258/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…Vs CIT 111 ITR 268 (SC) " Badridas Daga Vs CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) " Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 593 (Ker) " Shitla Prasad Shyam Lal Vs CIT 96 CTR 150 (All) " Kamla Cotton Company Vs CIT 226 ITR 605 (All) " A. W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 254 ITR 63 (Cal) ITA Nos. 258 & 259/Del/2013 Timex Watches Ltd. 18. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the amount was fraudulently withdrawn from the accounts of the assessee who made out efforts to money back by filing the suit against the bank and that the account from which the money was withdrawn fraudulently…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Watches Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2769/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…Vs CIT 111 ITR 268 (SC) " Badridas Daga Vs CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) " Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 593 (Ker) " Shitla Prasad Shyam Lal Vs CIT 96 CTR 150 (All) " Kamla Cotton Company Vs CIT 226 ITR 605 (All) " A. W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 254 ITR 63 (Cal) ITA Nos. 258 & 259/Del/2013 Timex Watches Ltd. 18. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the amount was fraudulently withdrawn from the accounts of the assessee who made out efforts to money back by filing the suit against the bank and that the account from which the money was withdrawn fraudulently…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escorts Finance Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 6673/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. R.M. Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…i) read with Section 36 (2) of the Act. He was also of the view that it was not a case of trading loss under Section 28 of the Act. According to him, on the facts of this case, judgment of 21 Calcutta High Court in the case of A. W. Figgies & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 254 ITR 63 was directly applicable. The ITAT has affirmed the aforesaid view. (2) The assessee had also claimed depreciation at the rate of 60% of computers accessories and peripherals purchased by the assessee during this year. The Assessing Officer, however, allowed the depreciation at the rate of 25%. The CIT(A) reversed this part of the order of the A…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. S.B. Packaging Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4130/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri R.S.Syal, Am & Sri C.M.Garg, Jm Ita No. 4130/Del./2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Dcit Vs S.B.Packaging Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Vardhman Plaza Corner, Circle-7(1), Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Inder Enclave, Paschim Vihar, I.P.Estate, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcs3731Q

For Appellant: Ms. Anina Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Gupta, CA
Section 36

…. (2008) 167 Taxman 160 (Delhi) CIT v. Nai Duniya (2006) 154 Taxman 493 (M.P.) CIT v. Morgan Securities and Credits (P) Ltd. (2007) 162 Taxman 124 (Del.) CIT. v. Girish Bhagwat Prasad (2002) 256 ITR 772,774 (Guj.) A.W. Figgis & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 63, 65-66 (Cal.) While going through the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the various other court and also the provision of the law its stands today and also going through the material on record, I am left with no option but to allow the appellant’s contention of bad debts and allow the claim of bad debts amounting…

Avery India Ltd., Haryana vs. D.C.I.T, Cir- 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 601/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kedia, ld.A/RFor Respondent: Shri D. Naskar, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…8 lakhs, which was held to be not deductible as bad debts in view of the provisions of section 36(2), could be considered as an allowable business loss. [Para 13] E. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of A.W.Figgis & Co (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in (2002) 254 ITR 63 (Cal), wherein the questions raised before their Lordships and their decision are as under:- ITA No.601/Kol/2013-C-AM 8 M/s. Avery India Ltd “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee’s claim was not allowable under s. 28 of the IT Act, 1961, being deductible business l…

CIT vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA/1712/2010HC Delhi09 Nov 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

…view that it was not a case of trading loss under Section 28 of the Act. According to him, on the facts of this case, judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of ITA No. 1712/2010 & 1714/2010 Page 3 of 6 A.W.Figgies & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 254 ITR 63 was directly applicable. The ITAT has affirmed the aforesaid view. (2) The assessee had also claimed depreciation at the rate of 60% of computers accessories and peripherals purchased by the assessee during this year. The Assessing Officer, however, allowed the depreciation at the rate of 25%. The CIT (A) reversed this part of the order…

CIT vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA - 1712 / 2010HC Delhi09 Nov 2010
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

…king the aforesaid view. The CIT (A), however, reversed this order of the Assessing Officer holding that the claim was covered by Section 36 (1) (vii) read with Section 36 (2) of the Act. He was also of the 2010:DHC:5425-DB A.W.Figgies & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 254 ITR 63 was directly applicable. The ITAT has affirmed the aforesaid view. (2) The assessee had also claimed depreciation at the rate of 60% of computers accessories and peripherals purchased by the assessee during this year. The Assessing Officer, however, allowed the depreciation at the rate of 25%. The CIT (A) reversed this part of the order…