CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co. (102 ITR 604)

SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1417 & 1418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Jain, V. Income-Tax, No. 123, Usman Road, Central Circle 1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 153ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…orming asset, no interest income is recognized on this count which cannot be the reason to disallow the claim of bad debt. For this purpose, we rely on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co , 102 ITR 604 (AP). In our opinion, the advance made by the assessee in the ordinary course of business which is stock in trade is to be valued at cost or market price, whichever is less. In the present case, the debt has become bad and it being stock in trade the value is NIL. Therefore, it has to be considered as business loss and allowed. We find merit in t…

SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1417/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1417 & 1418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Jain, V. Income-Tax, No. 123, Usman Road, Central Circle 1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 153ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…orming asset, no interest income is recognized on this count which cannot be the reason to disallow the claim of bad debt. For this purpose, we rely on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co , 102 ITR 604 (AP). In our opinion, the advance made by the assessee in the ordinary course of business which is stock in trade is to be valued at cost or market price, whichever is less. In the present case, the debt has become bad and it being stock in trade the value is NIL. Therefore, it has to be considered as business loss and allowed. We find merit in t…

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)

…debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee…’’. CASELAWS ON THE ISSUE: I) Debt from money lending is different from other businesses: (1) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CIT vs T.Veerabhadra Rao, K.Koteswara Rao & Co. in 102 ITR 604 has held as reproduced hereunder (paper book pages 39 to 46): ‘’4………… Now s. 36(2)(i) reads : "In making any deduction for a bad debt or part thereof, the following provisions shall apply: (i) No such deduction shall be allowed unless such debt or part thereof— (a) has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of that previo…

PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/147/2016HC Karnataka07 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…de is perverse and therefore, the matter deserves to be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. T.VEERABHADRA RAO, K.KOTESWARA RAO & CO.', 102 ITR 604, 'P.C.DHARMALINGA MUDALIAR VS. CIT', 152 ITR 588, 'NARAIN SWADESHI WEAVING MILLS VS. CEPT', 26 ITR 765, 'INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS', 55 ITR 736, 'BADRIDAS DAGA VS. CIT', 34 ITR 10, 'A.V.THOMAS & CO. LTD. VS. CIT', 48 ITR 67, 'ALL GROW FINANCE AND INVESTMENT P LTD. VS. CIT', 338 ITR 496, 'POYSHA…

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITTA/147/2016HC Telangana24 Aug 2018

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…de is perverse and therefore, the matter deserves to be remitted to the tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. T.VEERABHADRA RAO, K.KOTESWARA RAO & CO.', 102 ITR 604, 'P.C.DHARMALINGA MUDALIAR VS. CIT', 152 ITR 588, 'NARAIN SWADESHI WEAVING MILLS VS. CEPT', 26 ITR 765, 'INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS', 55 ITR 736, 'BADRIDAS DAGA VS. CIT', 34 ITR 10, 'A.V.THOMAS & CO. LTD. VS. CIT', 48 ITR 67, 'ALL GROW FINANCE AND INVESTMENT P LTD. VS. CIT', 338 ITR 496, 'POYSHA…

ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AACHMAN VANIJYA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 112/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl.CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Girish Sharma, Advocate, ld.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…assessee’s business and, the assessee is entitled to claim the same as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. In support of the contention, the assessee relied on following case laws:- a. All Grow Fin. & Inv. P.Ltd 338 ITR 496(Del) b. P.C.Dharmalinga Mudaliar 152 ITR 588(Mad.) c. Morgan Securities & Credit P.Ltd 162 Taxmann 124(Del) d. and other case laws, which available/mentioned in the order of the CIT-A. 8. The CIT-A considering the submissions as well as the various case laws available in his order held that bad debt of Rs.2,59,67,905/- is an allowable business expenditure by observing and stating as under:…

CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao, K. Koteswara Rao & Co.

Issues it is cited on