CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao

155 ITR 152Supreme Court of India1985#2672 most cited

What is CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao authority for?

When a partnership firm takes over the business of an earlier firm, all assets and liabilities transfer to the new firm. The deduction for bad debts is available to the assessee on the total amount written off, even if part of the debt (interest) was offered to tax in earlier years.

44

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. T. Veerabhadra Rao · 155 ITR 152 · partnership firm · take over business · earlier firm · assets and liabilities · bad debt deduction · total amount written off · interest offered to tax

Also reported as

22 Taxmann 45

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 1961Section 10(34)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 10(35)Section 115JBSection 32(1)(iia)

Issues it is cited on

section 72atest of enduring benefitsection 32(2)section 31(1)section 35ddsection 170resulting companysection 50bsection 147(b)business transfer agreementsection 115jaademerger

Judgments citing CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao

Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 782/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 782/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 & Sa No. 132/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Industrial Plot No. 243, Tower-A, Circle-4(2), 3Rd, 4Th, 5Th 1St & Tower-B, New Delhi 2Nd 5Th Ground & Floors, Sp Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc5056G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr & Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14(3)Section 144Section 43BSection 56(2)(viia)

…54 of 1980 dated 05.12.1980, Delhi High Court 8 SA No. 132/Del/2021 Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd.  Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (1997) 223 ITR 809 (SC) 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co. 155 ITR 152 held as follows: "If a business, along with its assets and liabilities, is transferred by one owner to another, a debt so transferred would be entitled to the same treatment in the hands of the successor. The recovery of the debt is a right transferred along with the numerous other rights comprising the subject of the transfer. If the law permit…

Pranava Electronics P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…requirement does not apply where the bad debt consists of a loan advanced in the ordinary course of banking or money-lending business……." The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh mentioned supra has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 155 ITR 152. Page 8 of 21 (2) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P.C.Dharmalinga Mudaliar vs CIT in 152 ITR 588 has held as reproduced hereunder): ‘’6. We do not accept learned counsel's construction of s. 36(2)(i)(a) as being supported by any acceptable rule of statutory construction. In the first place, the IT Act, 1961, in which this provision…

Orient Cement Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1272/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1272/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Orient Cement Ltd...................................................................…………………Appellant 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan:Aabco5420A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…............…...........……………….....………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.05.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’]Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 37

…o our contention the said amount is allowable under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2)(i) of the Act, the said amount is also deductible under section 37 of the Act. Your attention is invited to the following judgments: 1) CIT v. VeerabhadraRao [1985] 155 ITR 152/22 Taxman 45 (SC.) 3 I.T.A. No.1272/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Orient Cement Ltd 2) CIT-VI v. Times Business Solution Ltd. [2013] 33 Taxmann.com 173 (HC. Delhi)” 4.3 However, the assessing Officer did not get satisfied from the above explanation given by the assessee. He disallowed the claim of the assessee relating to Carbon credit expen…

M/S. Middleby Celforts Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-15 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shrichanda Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRICHANDA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.953 to 955/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s. Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 3rd Floor, Onyx Centre, No.5, Circle – 4(1)(2), Musuem Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAICM 8445 J Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 14.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are appeals by…

M/S. Middleby Celforts Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-15 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shrichanda Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRICHANDA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.953 to 955/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s. Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 3rd Floor, Onyx Centre, No.5, Circle – 4(1)(2), Musuem Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAICM 8445 J Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 14.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are appeals by…

M/S. Middleeby Celforts Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-15 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 953/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shrichanda Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRICHANDA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.953 to 955/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 M/s. Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 3rd Floor, Onyx Centre, No.5, Circle – 4(1)(2), Musuem Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAICM 8445 J Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 14.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President These are appeals by…

Cadence Designs Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 597/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sparsh Bhargava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT/DR
Section 36(2)

…pany, i.e., Cadence AMS Design India Pvt. Ltd. and the provision for doubtful debts was to be allowed only in respect of the assessee and none else. 5. Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao, 155 ITR 152 (SC) and of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Sambhav Media Ltd., 33 taxmann.com 363(Guj. HC) for the principle that the successor entity is entitled to claim deduction in respect of bad debts relating to the predecessor entity before amalgamation. Hon’ble Gujrat High Court held that where the amalgamated company carried certain doubtful debts…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 581/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Choudhary, CIT DR &
Section 14ASection 35

…he earlier company and duly offered to tax turned bad at a later date be allowed as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs T. V. Rao 155 ITR 152. Owing to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hereby hold that the bad debts written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee in relation to the debts acquired on purchase of business which has been offered as income by the predecessor company is allowable u/s 36(2). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduce…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 580/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Choudhary, CIT DR &
Section 14ASection 35

…he earlier company and duly offered to tax turned bad at a later date be allowed as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs T. V. Rao 155 ITR 152. Owing to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hereby hold that the bad debts written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee in relation to the debts acquired on purchase of business which has been offered as income by the predecessor company is allowable u/s 36(2). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduce…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S V E Commercial Vehicles Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5734/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Choudhary, CIT DR &
Section 14ASection 35

…he earlier company and duly offered to tax turned bad at a later date be allowed as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs T. V. Rao 155 ITR 152. Owing to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hereby hold that the bad debts written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee in relation to the debts acquired on purchase of business which has been offered as income by the predecessor company is allowable u/s 36(2). The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduce…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7074/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Vice- & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri M.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen &
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145ASection 2(14)Section 35Section 35DSection 36Section 4Section 43BSection 45

…tion 36(2)(i) are fulfilled where a part thereof is taken into account in computing the income of the assessee.” The Hon’ble High Court in the above case has analysed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao, 155 ITR 152 and observed that when only the interest income was offered to tax by the assessee and not the loan itself, the requirement of Section 36(2)(i) of the Act is satisfied even though the principal amount of loan was not offered to tax as the interest represents the part of the debt and Section 36(2)(i) of the Act states that “debt or part thereof” s…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…io Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 178 (Delhi) (para 13), CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR (St.) 9 (SC) (para 13), CIT (Deputy) v. Shreyas S. Morakhia [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) [SB] (para 8)CIT v. Veerabhadra Rao (T.), K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 (SC) (para 11) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) (para 7). Thus, considering the provision of section 36(1)(vii), prior to April, 1, 1989 and post amendment held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable and the aforesaid decisions from Hon'ble Apex Court/Hon'ble Hig…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…io Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 178 (Delhi) (para 13), CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR (St.) 9 (SC) (para 13), CIT (Deputy) v. Shreyas S. Morakhia [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) [SB] (para 8)CIT v. Veerabhadra Rao (T.), K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 (SC) (para 11) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) (para 7). Thus, considering the provision of section 36(1)(vii), prior to April, 1, 1989 and post amendment held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable and the aforesaid decisions from Hon'ble Apex Court/Hon'ble Hig…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…io Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 178 (Delhi) (para 13), CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR (St.) 9 (SC) (para 13), CIT (Deputy) v. Shreyas S. Morakhia [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) [SB] (para 8)CIT v. Veerabhadra Rao (T.), K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 (SC) (para 11) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) (para 7). Thus, considering the provision of section 36(1)(vii), prior to April, 1, 1989 and post amendment held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable and the aforesaid decisions from Hon'ble Apex Court/Hon'ble Hig…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…io Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 178 (Delhi) (para 13), CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR (St.) 9 (SC) (para 13), CIT (Deputy) v. Shreyas S. Morakhia [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) [SB] (para 8)CIT v. Veerabhadra Rao (T.), K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 (SC) (para 11) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) (para 7). Thus, considering the provision of section 36(1)(vii), prior to April, 1, 1989 and post amendment held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable and the aforesaid decisions from Hon'ble Apex Court/Hon'ble Hig…

Jsw Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 714/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Sh Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Smt. Arju Garodia
Section 14A

…d as bad debt written off by this Tribunal while computing the income from business / profession in assessment year 2007-08. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the following case laws in this respect: 1. 323 ITR 397 (sc) T.R.F. Ltd v CIT. 2. 155 ITR 152 (SC) CIT Vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co. 3. ITA No. 3191/Mum/2010 – Jindal South West holding Ltd v DCIT – assessee own case for assessment year 2007-08 17. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal dated 21.11.2012 passed in ITA No. 3191/Mum/2010 vide which the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee for write off o…

Bloom Packaging P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Precy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita Menon, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

…is accordingly dismissed.” 17.1. Further, we have perused the written submissions filed by the assessee and find paras 3.6 to 3.11 are relevant. Assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao (155 ITR 152) and the relevant paras from the said judgment are extracted as under:- “7.......If a business, along with its assets and liabilities, is transferred by one owner to another, we see no reason why a debit so transferred should not be entitled to the same treatment in the hands of the successor. The recovery of the debt is a right transferred alon…

M/S Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

…lier year and hence it has duly fulfilled the condition specified under Section 36(2) of the Act. He has also relied upon the following judgments : 40 IT(TP)A No.1364/Bang/2011 Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. a) CIT Vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao & K. Koteswara Rao & Co. 155 ITR 152 (SC). b) CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC). 11.3 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that once the debts were transferred being part of the slump sale then the claim of the assessee is not allowable as it will be a capital loss being reduction of consideration of slump sale. Even the capital…

American Express (India) Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2165/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageshwar Rao and Sandeep S. Karhail, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 36(1)(vii)

…with the other assets and liabilities by the transfer of such debt, the assessee gets right to recover such debts. Ld. AR pointed out that this issue is no longer res integra and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of CIT vs. T. Veerbhadra Rao – 155 ITR 152 (SC) wherein it was held that if a business along with assets and liabilities is transferred by one owner to another, a debt so transferred would be entitled to the same treatment in the hands of the successor. The recovery of debt is a right transferred and where law permits the transferor to treat the debt as irrecoverable and to claim deduct…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2094/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageshwar Rao and Sandeep S. Karhail, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 36(1)(vii)

…with the other assets and liabilities by the transfer of such debt, the assessee gets right to recover such debts. Ld. AR pointed out that this issue is no longer res integra and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of CIT vs. T. Veerbhadra Rao – 155 ITR 152 (SC) wherein it was held that if a business along with assets and liabilities is transferred by one owner to another, a debt so transferred would be entitled to the same treatment in the hands of the successor. The recovery of debt is a right transferred and where law permits the transferor to treat the debt as irrecoverable and to claim deduct…