Harshad J.Choksi v. CIT, Bombay City- VII
25 Taxmann.com 567High Court2012#3795 most cited
What is Harshad J.Choksi v. CIT, Bombay City- VII authority for?
The conditions for claiming a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) are not fulfilled if the assessee fails to provide details of the parties associated with the debts or evidence that these amounts were offered to tax in earlier years. An alternate claim for loss under Section 28 is denied without evidence substantiating the loss in the relevant assessment year.
31
judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.
Also referred to as
Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT · Section 36(1)(vii) · Section 36(2) · Section 28 · bad debt deduction · wholly and exclusively for business · business expediency · going concern · denial of deduction