DIA v. Oman International Bank

313 ITR 128High Court2009#3877 most cited

What is DIA v. Oman International Bank authority for?

A company is not required to prove that a debt has become bad to claim a deduction; writing off the debt as irrecoverable in the company's accounts is sufficient, especially after the amendment of Section 36(1)(vii) from April 1, 1989.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIA v. Oman International Bank · 313 ITR 128 · section 36(1)(vii) · bad debt deduction · write off debt · irrecoverable debt · business expenditure · income tax act · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 10(15)Section 10(23G)Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 234BSection 234D

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)section 36(1)section 36section 37assistant commissionerappeal before the tribunalopportunity of being heardcompanysection 143(3)total incomebusiness

Judgments citing DIA v. Oman International Bank

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3945/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…ntly, fact of the matter is that assessee has fulfilled the statutory conditions for claiming bad debts written off as a deduction. We note from para 11 of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DIT vs. Oman International Bank SOAG [2009] 313 ITR 128 (Bom) which emphasizes that the decision to treat a debt as bad debt in the books has to be a business and commercial decision. All that the assessee must do is to be prima facie satisfied based on the information available that the debt is bad. In the present case before us, assessee had evidently demonstrated its prima facie case explaining the…

RAVI YANTRIKI UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD (5)(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1588/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 133(6)Section 194C

…e-Trib.) and in the case of Xebec Communication Pvt.\nLtd. Vs. JCIT, ITA No. 152/PUN/2015 (Pune-Trib.) as well as Jurisdictional\nBombay High Court in the case of Star Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 11 DTR 311\n(Bom.) and in the case of DIT Vs. Oman International Bank, 313 ITR 128\n(Bom.).\n\n7.\nThe Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\n\n8.\nWe have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused\nthe orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, paper book filed\nby the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee as well as various judicial\nprecedents relied upon by the Ld. AR. We find th…

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

ITA 5792/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. P.C. Chhotoray, Spl. Counsel, [D/R]
Section 10Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…only to write off the debts in its books and need not establish that the debt has become bad in the said year of write off. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Oman International bank reported in 313 ITR 128 which has confirmed the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal which has held that after amendment of Section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. 01/04/1989, it is not obligatory on part of the assessee to prove that the debt written off is bad and if the same is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, it will suffice for claimi…

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

ITA 5396/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. P.C. Chhotoray, Spl. Counsel, [D/R]
Section 10Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…only to write off the debts in its books and need not establish that the debt has become bad in the said year of write off. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Oman International bank reported in 313 ITR 128 which has confirmed the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal which has held that after amendment of Section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. 01/04/1989, it is not obligatory on part of the assessee to prove that the debt written off is bad and if the same is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, it will suffice for claimi…

ASST CIT 1 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S JANAKALYN SAHAKARI BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result these appeals by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6840/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(yii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 6840/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 6841/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 6842/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. M/s. Janakalyan Sahakari ACIT-1(3)(1) Room No. 540 Bank Limited 5th Floor 140, Vivek Darshan Aayakar Bhavan Sindhi Society, Opp. Bhakti M.K. Road Bhavan, Chembur Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 071. PAN :N AACFJ6244R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vishwas Mehendale Department by Shri Achal Shrma Date of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date of Pronounc…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2559/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgan, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e same is bona fide and based on its commercial expediency of the assessee company and therefore following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd vs. CIT 323 ITR 397, Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. Oman International Bank SAOG 313 ITR 128 (Bom) and Board circular No. 551 dated 23/1/1990, deleted the disallowance of Rs. 47,40,16,508/-. 7. It is the argument of the Ld. AR that the Prudential Norms are directions issued by the RBI to NBFCs, inter alia, in relation to classification of loans as good, non-performing asset (NPA), for which provision is to be created in the books of acc…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IBM INDIA PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/392/2011HC Karnataka03 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)

…ndment made to S.36(2) w.e.f.1st April 1989 and any doubt, if remaining, has been clarified by Circular No.551 dated 23rd January, 1990. (iii) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay) P. Ltd. reported in (2009) 313 ITR 126 (Bom), in its wisdom had held that "under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Circular No.551 dated January 23, 1990 if the assessee had written off the debt as a bad debt that would satisfy the purpose of the Section." (iv) The Hon'ble highest judiciary of the 8 land in its recent verdict in the case of T.R.F. ltd. Vs.…

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3327/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 37

…eliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements and CBDT Circulars. ITA 3327/MUM/2018 Vodafone India Limited vs Pr. CIT, Mumbai 1. TRF Ltd. vs CIT, 190 Taxman 391 (SC) 2. Vijay Bank vs CIT, 323 ITR 166 (SC) 3. CIT vs Star Chemicals (Bombay) (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 126 (Bombay High Court) 4. Circular No. 12/2006 (F.No.279/Misc./140/2015-ITJ) dated May 30, 2016. 5. Circular No. 551 dated Jan. 23, 1990 issued by the CBDT. 12. On the other hand, the ld DR contended that the AO had not applied his mind to the application of Section 35ABB of the Act. The order of the AO is, therefore, prejudicial to the interest of…

ESAB INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 1844/CHNY/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Reddi Prakash. G, ACAFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…sing Officer for considering the claim of the assessee afresh and also mentioned that the Assessing Officer has to give proper opportunity for the assessee for representing its case” by relying on the judgement in the case of OMAN International :-7-: Bank (313 ITR 128) where the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court held that “after amendment to section 36(1)(vii) it is neither obligatory nor is there any burden on the assessee to prove that the debt written off by him is indeed a bad debt as long as it is bonafide and is based on commercial wisdom or expediency.” 7.1. However, in the re-assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.…

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)

…by CBDT Circular No.551 dated 23/01/1990. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in CIT vs Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad.), CIT vs Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. ltd. (210 CTR 336)(Del.), DCIT vs Oman International Bank Saog. (313 ITR 128)(Bom.), CIT vs Star Chemicals (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. 220 CTR 319 (Bom.), CIT vs Global Capital Ltd. 201 taxation 210 (Del.), CIT vs M/s Excel Fashion Pvt. Ltd. (201 taxation 216)(Del), CIT vs Auto meters Ltd. 292 ITR 345 (Del.). So far as, the reliance upon the decision in Kashmir Trading Company vs DCIT and Ahamadabad Electricity Company Ltd. (sup…

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)

…by CBDT Circular No.551 dated 23/01/1990. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in CIT vs Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad.), CIT vs Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. ltd. (210 CTR 336)(Del.), DCIT vs Oman International Bank Saog. (313 ITR 128)(Bom.), CIT vs Star Chemicals (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. 220 CTR 319 (Bom.), CIT vs Global Capital Ltd. 201 taxation 210 (Del.), CIT vs M/s Excel Fashion Pvt. Ltd. (201 taxation 216)(Del), CIT vs Auto meters Ltd. 292 ITR 345 (Del.). So far as, the reliance upon the decision in Kashmir Trading Company vs DCIT and Ahamadabad Electricity Company Ltd. (sup…

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)

…by CBDT Circular No.551 dated 23/01/1990. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in CIT vs Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad.), CIT vs Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. ltd. (210 CTR 336)(Del.), DCIT vs Oman International Bank Saog. (313 ITR 128)(Bom.), CIT vs Star Chemicals (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. 220 CTR 319 (Bom.), CIT vs Global Capital Ltd. 201 taxation 210 (Del.), CIT vs M/s Excel Fashion Pvt. Ltd. (201 taxation 216)(Del), CIT vs Auto meters Ltd. 292 ITR 345 (Del.). So far as, the reliance upon the decision in Kashmir Trading Company vs DCIT and Ahamadabad Electricity Company Ltd. (sup…

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)

…by CBDT Circular No.551 dated 23/01/1990. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in CIT vs Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad.), CIT vs Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. ltd. (210 CTR 336)(Del.), DCIT vs Oman International Bank Saog. (313 ITR 128)(Bom.), CIT vs Star Chemicals (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. 220 CTR 319 (Bom.), CIT vs Global Capital Ltd. 201 taxation 210 (Del.), CIT vs M/s Excel Fashion Pvt. Ltd. (201 taxation 216)(Del), CIT vs Auto meters Ltd. 292 ITR 345 (Del.). So far as, the reliance upon the decision in Kashmir Trading Company vs DCIT and Ahamadabad Electricity Company Ltd. (sup…

BFIL FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY ITC BHADRACHALAM FINANCE & INVESTMENTS LTD),MUMBAI vs. I.T.O.1(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1898/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 Bfil Finance Ltd. (Formerly The Income-Tax Itc Bhadrachalam Finance & Vs. Officer-1(1)-1 Investment Ltd.) Eucharistic Aayakar Bhavan, Congress Building No. 1, 4Th Maharshi Karve Road, Floor, 5, Convent Street, Mumbai-400020. Colaba, Mumbai-400039. Pan No. Aaaci3193H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. F. V. Irani, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. F. V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR
Section 138Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…6(1)(vii) of the Act, it is not necessary for assessee to establish that the debt, in fact has become irrecoverable; it is enough if bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of assessee.” In the case of DIA v. Oman International Bank (313 ITR 128) (Bom.) it has been held that after amendment to section 36(1)(vii), it is neither obligatory nor is there any burden on the assessee to prove that debt written off by him is indeed a bad debt as long as it is bona fide and is based on commercial wisdom or expediency. In the case of CIT v. Star Chemicals (Bombay) Limited (313 ITR 126) (Bom), it h…

ICICI SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 4269/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Icici Securities Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Income Tax Range Vs. Marg, Churchgate, 4(1), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…tions laid down in section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and has written off the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,18,53,156/- as they were considered as irrecoverable. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in DIT (International Taxation) v. Oman International Bank SAOG (313 ITR 128) (Bom.), CIT v. Chemicals(Bombay) (P) Ltd. (313 ITR 128) (Bom) and TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397) (SC) and CBDT Circular No. 12/2016 dated May 30, 2016. ICICI Securities 15.4 On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 15.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find tha…

ASST CIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CHIRON BEHRING VACCINES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5579/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-9(2)(1) M/S Chiron Behring R. No.665A 6Th Floor, Vcaccines Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 501, Shri Amba Shanti Vs. M. K. Road, Chambers, Anderi Kurla Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacc6494P

Section 36(1)(VII)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘सी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘C’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT-9(2)(1) M/s Chiron Behring R. No.665A 6th Floor, Vcaccines Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 501, Shri Amba Shanti Vs. M. K. Road, Chambers, Anderi Kurla Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAACC6494P राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Rajat Mittal-DR "नधा"रती क" ओर…

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2346/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. Mumbai. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. M.K. Road Parekh Marg, Mumba-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. 6Th Floor Aayakar Marg, Churchgate, Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR

…ff of IPO commission, marketing fees, etc. The above amounts are written off in the books of accounts and has to be allowed as bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Act. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in the case DIA vs. Oman International Bank (313 ITR 128) (Bom.) and CIT vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay) Limited (313 ITR 126) (Bom). 4.3 On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submits that in fact the assessee-company failed to file before the AO party wise details and actual proof of write off in ledger account of a particular debtor. 4.4 We have heard the rival sub…

ICICI SECURITIES LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS ICICI BROKERAGE SERVICES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 1906/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. Mumbai. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. M.K. Road Parekh Marg, Mumba-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. 6Th Floor Aayakar Marg, Churchgate, Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR

…ff of IPO commission, marketing fees, etc. The above amounts are written off in the books of accounts and has to be allowed as bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Act. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in the case DIA vs. Oman International Bank (313 ITR 128) (Bom.) and CIT vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay) Limited (313 ITR 126) (Bom). 4.3 On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submits that in fact the assessee-company failed to file before the AO party wise details and actual proof of write off in ledger account of a particular debtor. 4.4 We have heard the rival sub…

D.C.I.T.4(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI SECURITIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2702/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. Mumbai. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. M.K. Road Parekh Marg, Mumba-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. 6Th Floor Aayakar Marg, Churchgate, Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR

…ff of IPO commission, marketing fees, etc. The above amounts are written off in the books of accounts and has to be allowed as bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Act. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in the case DIA vs. Oman International Bank (313 ITR 128) (Bom.) and CIT vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay) Limited (313 ITR 126) (Bom). 4.3 On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submits that in fact the assessee-company failed to file before the AO party wise details and actual proof of write off in ledger account of a particular debtor. 4.4 We have heard the rival sub…

ICICI SECURITIES LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS BROKERAGE SERVICES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2437/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. Mumbai. Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. M.K. Road Parekh Marg, Mumba-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Icici Securities Ltd. Acit-4(1) Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Vs. 6Th Floor Aayakar Marg, Churchgate, Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400020. Mumba-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-4(1) Icici Securities Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR

…ff of IPO commission, marketing fees, etc. The above amounts are written off in the books of accounts and has to be allowed as bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Act. The Ld. counsel relies on the decision in the case DIA vs. Oman International Bank (313 ITR 128) (Bom.) and CIT vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay) Limited (313 ITR 126) (Bom). 4.3 On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submits that in fact the assessee-company failed to file before the AO party wise details and actual proof of write off in ledger account of a particular debtor. 4.4 We have heard the rival sub…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2