TRF Ltd. v. CIT

Smt Rashmi Ramesh Damani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

…its traders and auctioning its assets for the said purpose. The revenue claimed that the claim o f bad debts was premature. However, the ITAT has allowed the claim o f the assessee based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs CIT 320 ITR 397 wherein it was held that after 1st April, 1989, it was not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt has become irrecoverable and it was enough if the debt was written off as irrecoverable in the books . Further, the CBDT vide Circular No. 12/2016 clarified regarding the claim of the bad debts, the same is reproduced as under: Circul…

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ketan Anil Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Ketan Anil Shah Income-Tax 19(1), Mumbai, 44/B Rajul Apartment Vs. Matru Mandir, Room No.203, J Mehta Marg, Napean Sea Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 Road, Mumbai-400 006 Pan No. Aaips 9400 J Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Anish Shah, Ca & Shri Haridas Bhat Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2023

…ure, However, t ITAT has allowed the claim of the assessee based on of bad debts was premature, However, t ITAT has allowed the claim of the assessee based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Ap the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs CIT 320 ITR 397 wherein it 320 ITR 397 wherein it was held that after 1st April 1989, it was not necessary for the assessee to establish that the was held that after 1 1989, it was not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt has becor irrecoverable and it was enough if the debt was written off as irrecoverable in debt has becor irrecoverable and it…

Naik Seafoods P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Naik Seafoods Pvt. Ltd., V. Pr. Cit – 2 408, Emca House Room No. 344 Shahid Bhagatsingh Road Aayakar Bhavan Fort, Mumbai - 400001 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacn4327N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Waglay Department By : Shri Rahul Raman

…written off or any earlier previous year. [S.36 (2)] and further, if the debt or any part of it is subsequently recovered, the same shall be profit and gain in terms of S.41 (4) of the Act. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. v CIT [320 ITR 397]. The assessee would like to submit that the said bad debt pertained to one company by the name Keres Trading from France [P._11] and in the 12 M/s. Naik Seafoods Pvt. Ltd., subsequent year an amount of ₹.1,14,00,000 was received in respect of the same from ECGC and the same was duly shown as income in the Profit and Loss Account for the year end…

DCIT, CC- 8(1), Mumbai vs. Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

…f its traders and auctioning its assets for the said purpose. The revenue claimed that the claim of bad debts was premature. However, the ITAT has allowed the claim of the assessee based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. v. CIT 320 ITR 397 wherein it was held that after 1st April, 1989, it was not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt has become irrecoverable and it was enough if the debt was written off as irrecoverable in the books. Further, the CBDT vide Circular No. 12/2016 clarified regarding the claim of the bad debts, the same is reproduced as under: Circular…

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

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

…in Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement 22 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ITA Nos.469, 469, 1187 & 1188/Mum/2017 of demonstrating that the debts has become bad has been dispensed with and only requirement remains that it should be “written off” in books of accounts of the assess…

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

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

…in Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement 22 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ITA Nos.469, 469, 1187 & 1188/Mum/2017 of demonstrating that the debts has become bad has been dispensed with and only requirement remains that it should be “written off” in books of accounts of the assess…

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

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

…in Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement 22 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ITA Nos.469, 469, 1187 & 1188/Mum/2017 of demonstrating that the debts has become bad has been dispensed with and only requirement remains that it should be “written off” in books of accounts of the assess…

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

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

…in Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement 22 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ITA Nos.469, 469, 1187 & 1188/Mum/2017 of demonstrating that the debts has become bad has been dispensed with and only requirement remains that it should be “written off” in books of accounts of the assess…

M.K. Creations, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2010-11 M/S M.K. Creations, Income Tax Officer C/O- Shankarlal Jain & Ward-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Associates, Earnest House, Vs. 12, Engineer Building, Nariman Point, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaafm2004J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shankarlal Jain Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 06/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…in Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 2.3. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement of demonstrating that the debts has become bad has been dispensed with and only requirement remains that it should be “written off” in books of accounts of the assessee, which has been further clarified by CBDT Circular No.551 da…

DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Control Print (India) Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit(Osd), Range-8(1), M/S Control Print (India) Ltd. Room No.260A, 2Nd Floor, C-106, Hind Saurashtra बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, M.V. Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Marol Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacc5378C

…rint (India) Ltd. iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 2.3. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement of demonstrating that the debts has become bad has been dispensed with and only requirement remains that it should be “written off” in books of accounts of the assessee, which has been further clarified by CBDT Circular No.551…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

…reditors. In support of this proposition, the assessee had relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT ( 263 ITR 437) (ii)Commissioner of Income-Tax. Vs. Eicher Limited (294 ITR 310) (iii) CIT. vs. Development Credit Bank Limited. (323 ITR 167) (iv) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011) 3321TR 167 (Del.) (v) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 33. The learned DR from the department had also argued before Tribunal that the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry and that revenue. The learned DR had relied upon following decisions:- i. CIT v Infosys Technologies 341 ITR 293 ii. CIT v Hi…