How many judgments cite CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari?

40 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (130 ITR 95), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(vii), Section 147, Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 40(a)(i), Section 9(1)(vii).

CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari

130 ITR 95High Court1981#2966 most cited

What is CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari authority for?

When an assessee writes off a debt as bad, it is a decision made in the ordinary course of business. The Income Tax Officer cannot question the correctness of this decision unless there is evidence of fraud or mala fide.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari · Section 36(1)(vii) · bad debt deduction · write off · ordinary course of business · fraud · mala fide · Income Tax Officer's power

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 147 Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 250 Section 36(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)section 41(4)section 2(15a)section 36(i)section 17(2)(iiia)tds on commission section 36(2)section 36(2)(v)section 94 section 17(2)section 36(1)(vii)section 38

Judgments citing CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii), (See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwarl (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaladas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwaia v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj), Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-1989, However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in Section 36(2)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in…

M/S. Trio Elevators Company (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1726/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1725-1726/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. Trio Elevators Company (India)Ltd., D.C.I.T., 404, Shivam Complex, Vs. Circle-4(1)(2), Bhuyangdev Cross Road, Gandhinagar. Sola Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aacct4923E

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 36(2)Section 37

…account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). [See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom.) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai ITA nos.1725 -1726/AHD/2019 A.Ys. 2010-11 - 2011-12 6 Bardanwala v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj.)] Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in…

M/S. Trio Elevators Company (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1725/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 36(2)Section 37

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1637/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Anand Sondur, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni. JCIT-DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

…account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii), (See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwarl (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaladas H. DhanjibhaiBardanwaia v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj), Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-1989, However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in Section 36(2)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in…

Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range 6(3)

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…y the various courts in the following cases and decided in favour of the assessee viz., Vijaya Bank [323 ITR 166 (SC)], TRF Ltd [323 ITR 397 (SC)], Arrow Coated Products Ltd [136 ITD 315 (Mum)], Jwala Prsad Tiwari [24 ITR 537 (Bom)] and Vithaldas Dhanji Bhai [130 ITR 95 (Guj)] and requested the same be adopted in the case of assessee also. Ld.DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 8.1 Further, Ld AR submitted that in the instant case the assessee declared all details of debtors and bad debts claimed in the Profit and Loss Account, he brought to our notice the details, which he has filed in the pap…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sppl Property Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2074/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…oans and advances to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt was sufficient, the answer given by the Tribunal was that, in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. CIT, reported in (1981) 130 ITR 95 the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was right in coming to the conclusion that since the assessee had written off the impugned had in its books by way of a debit to the Profit and Loss Account Simultaneously reducing the corresponding amount from loans and advances or debtors depicted on the asset sides in the balance sheet at the close of th…

DCIT, Circle - 3, Kolkata vs. M/S. the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 115JSection 260A

…ccount of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). (See CIT V. Jawala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Born.) and Vithaldas H Dhanjibjai Bardanwala v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj.)] Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment yeatr 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36( l)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made i…

Boscj Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1582/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1556/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.R

Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

…account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii), (See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwarl (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaladas H. DhanjibhaiBardanwaia v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj), Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-1989, However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in Section 36(2)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1556/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1556/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.R

Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

…account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii), (See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwarl (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaladas H. DhanjibhaiBardanwaia v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj), Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-1989, However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in Section 36(2)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in…

Vidres India Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2521/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vii)

…account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). [See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom.) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj.)] Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in…

The Akkialur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Haveri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2885/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Ramasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). (See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari [1953] 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 95 (Guj)). Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the asses see will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in…

Darshan Roadlines P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 186/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.186/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income Tax-6(2)(1) 301, Commercial Manor 4Th Cross Clive Road, Masjid (E) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-8064-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Sunil Natha, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…tion in the loans and advances to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt was sufficient, the answer given by the Tribunal was that, in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. CIT [1981 130 ITR 95], the CIT(A) was right in coming to the conclusion that, since the assessee had written off the impugned bad debt in its books by way of a debit to the profit and loss account simultaneously reducing the corresponding amount from Loans and Advances or Debtors depicted on the asset side in the balance sheet at the close of the year, the assessee wa…

Addl.C.I.T. RG.3(3), Mumbai vs. Aavaran Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5971/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Addl. Cit Range 3(3) Aavaram Textiles Pvt Ltd., Mumbai 81-A, Mittal Court, बनाम/ 224 Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 25

…account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). (See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari [1953] 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala Vs. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 95 (Guj.). Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in the accou…

D.C.I.T. RG.3(3), Mumbai vs. Reliance Welfare Association, Mumbai

ITA 5976/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Reliance Welfare Tax Circle 3(3) Association Circle Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Maker Chambers Iv, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan:Aaacr6115N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 25

…account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). (See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari [1953] 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala Vs. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 95 (Guj.). Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in the accou…

M/S Malnad Finance Corporation (R), Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/BANG/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR. V. Sreenivas, JCIT

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 68

…ts in the balance sheet, he submitted that in the balance sheet, net amount of deposit after writing off is appearing. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Vithaldas Dhanjibhari v. Commissioner of Income Tax 130 ITR 95 and pointed out that it was held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in this case that if an amount of bad debt is debited to P&L account by debit to P&L account and crediting Bad Debts Reserve account, it amounts to write off of bad debts. At this juncture, it was pointed out by the bench that this judgment dated 20.08.1980 is involving AY 1967-68 and…

M/S Malnad Finance Corporation (R), Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 121/BANG/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR. V. Sreenivas, JCIT

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 68

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2853/DEL/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 1995-96 Vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Block-C, Sector - Acit, Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, C.R. Building, New Delhi 45, Gurgaon Pan : Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 06/03/2012 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 1995-96, In Respect Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”), Levied By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.3,43,70,911/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves To Amend Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground Of Appeal At Any Tiem Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 30

…, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful debts was added back in the computation with full disclosure, however, the same was claimed on the basis of a note appended to the computation relying on the decision in 130 ITR 95 (Guj). He further submitted that that the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction without any discussion. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in order dated 02/09/2002 allowed the claim of the assessee, relying upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in 130 ITR 95 and 143 ITR 166 held that debtor’s account need not to be square…

M/S. Classic Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cen Cir-40, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4820/MUM/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S. Classic Shares & Stock Vs. Dcit – Cc-40, Mumbai Broking Services Ltd., Radha Bhavan, 1St Floor, 121, Nagindas Master Road, Mumbai-400023 Pan/Gir No. Aabcs4255R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…write off means "to transfer the balance of un account, previously recorded as an asset to an expense account or to P&L account. In support of its claim, the assessee has also cited following Case laws: 1. Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai. Bandanwala -vs- ClT, (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj). 2. CIT -Vs- Jwala Prasad Tewari, 24 ITR 537 (Bom). 3. Sarangpur cotton Mfg. Co , Lrd. -vs- CIT, 143 ITR 166, 173 (Guj) • 4. CIT –vs- Union Carbide (1) Ltd., 7p., Taxrnan, 605, 610. 5. CIT-vs-.. United Bank of India, 115 CTR 35,38 (Cal). After considering submissions of the assessee, the claim of the assessee is allowed.” 5. Thereafter, the…

CIT vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd

ITA - 452 / 2011HC Delhi16 Nov 2011

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(VII)Section 36(1)(vii)

…duction on account of doubtful debts and advances has been a subject matter of considerable controversy and divergent judicial pronouncements. Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in *Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala versus Commissioner of Income Tax*, (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Gujarat) was clearly in favour of the assessee. Thereafter there were two decisions of Bombay High Court in *CIT versus General Insurance Corporation*, (2002) 2 ITR 204 (Bom.) and *CIT versus M/s Asea Limited*, (2002) 258 ITR 407 (Bom.) which as per the assessee support their stand. In view of the varied/ divergent ![](_page_5_Picture_1.jpeg) d…

M/S. Southern Technologies Ltd vs. Joint Commnr. of Income Tax, Coimbatore

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010

Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

…on under Section 37 as a trading loss. This led to matters going in appeal (s). To conclude, it may be stated that following the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat-V 130 ITR 95, the ITAT held that since Assessee had debited the said sum of Rs. 81,68,516/- to the P&L Account it was entitled to claim deduction as a write off under Section 36(1)(vii) which view was not accepted by the High Court, hence, this batch of Civil Appeal (s) are filed by NBFCs. Submissions 3 Appellant made “Provision for NPA” amounting to…