What is TRF Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

How many judgments cite TRF Ltd. v. CIT?

714 judgments on BharatTax cite TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does TRF Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(vii), Section 147, Section 14A, Section 36(2), Section 148.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397)

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Millennia Developers (P) Ltd

ITA/735/2009HC Karnataka19 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 171Section 260

…sibility of claim of deduction of Bad Debt under Section 36 (1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. While referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case TRF LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), wherein it was held that the bad debt could be written off as irrecoverable, as long as it finds a place in the books of account of the assessee. In those circumstances, the Circular enunciated that the claim for any debt or part thereof in any previous year, shall be admissible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written o…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Millennia Developers (P) Ltd

ITA/734/2009HC Karnataka19 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 171Section 260

…sibility of claim of deduction of Bad Debt under Section 36 (1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. While referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case TRF LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), wherein it was held that the bad debt could be written off as irrecoverable, as long as it finds a place in the books of account of the assessee. In those circumstances, the Circular enunciated that the claim for any debt or part thereof in any previous year, shall be admissible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jsl Ltd., Hisar

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…at this issue is covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of Hon‘ble ITAT in the assessee‘s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 4111/Del/2013, wherein, following the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT (323 ITR 397), Hon‘ble ITAT, deleted the disallowance of bad debts claimed in that year. 80. We have also considered the rival contentions and in view of the issue already covered in favour of the assessee, by the decision in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2006 – 07, wherein following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court, the coo…

Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…at this issue is covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of Hon‘ble ITAT in the assessee‘s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 4111/Del/2013, wherein, following the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT (323 ITR 397), Hon‘ble ITAT, deleted the disallowance of bad debts claimed in that year. 80. We have also considered the rival contentions and in view of the issue already covered in favour of the assessee, by the decision in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2006 – 07, wherein following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court, the coo…

Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1019/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ A/2/236, Gidc, Nandesari, Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Baroda – 391 340. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 9406 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 04/10/2018

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘Mh* Mh* Mh* अहमदाबाद । Mh* IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ds le{kA LkoZJh oZJh oZJh olhe oZJh olhe olhe vgen olhe vgen vgen] ys[kk lnL; , vgen ] ys[kk lnL; , ] ys[kk lnL; ,oaoaoaoa Ek/Ek/Ek/Ek/kqferk ] ys[kk lnL; , kqferk kqferk jkW; kqferk jkW; jkW;] U; jkW; ] U; ] U;kfkfkfkf;d lnL; ] U; ;d lnL; ;d lnL; ds le{kA ;d lnL; ds le{kA ds le{kA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, बनाम/ A/2/236,…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. Sun Tv Network Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 994/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.889 /Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Sun Tv Network Limited, Non-Corporate Circle 20(1) Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai – 34. 73, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadcs4885K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 06.09.2018

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियक सद"य एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.889 /CHNY/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The ACIT, M/s. Sun TV Network Limited, Non-Corporate Circle 20(1) Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai – 34. 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. PAN: AADCS4885K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.994/CHNY/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2…

M/S Sun Tv Network Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 889/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.889 /Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Sun Tv Network Limited, Non-Corporate Circle 20(1) Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai – 34. 73, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadcs4885K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 06.09.2018

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियक सद"य एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.889 /CHNY/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The ACIT, M/s. Sun TV Network Limited, Non-Corporate Circle 20(1) Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai – 34. 73, MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. PAN: AADCS4885K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.994/CHNY/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2…

M/S Pyramid Developers, Nagpur vs. Joint CIT Range 1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 343/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar

Section 131Section 133ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.343/Nag./2015 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) M/s. Pyramid Developers Ward no.125, Shree Ganesh Snehal Apartment, Shradhanandpeth …………… Appellant S.A. Road, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAFCP2753D v/s Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax ..…….………. Respondent Range–1, Nagpur ITA no.291/Nag./2015 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) M/s. Pyramid Arcade Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.78, Each A Classic Opp. Indian Oil Petrol Pump …………… Appellant Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAFCP2753D v/s…

Nandadevi Sumermal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5619/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 28

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “SMC” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 5619/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Nandadevi Sumermal Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward Shop No. 01, R.S. Nimkar 19(2)(4) Matru Mandir Building, 1 st & Marg, Near Pratiksha tower, Mumbai-400 008 wnd floor, nana Chowk, Bhatia Hospital Lane, Javji Vs. Dadaji marg, Grant Road, West, Kemps Corner, Grant Road, Mumbai Maharashtra- 400007 .. (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) (p`%yaqaaI- /…

Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 5407/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Acit Cc-4(2), Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Acit Cc-4(2), M/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Mumbai-400020. Vs. Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr), Rajeev Gubgotra Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Cross Appeals Filed Under Section 253 Of The Act Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR), Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…Bangalore bench of Tribunal in the case of Empress Classic P Ltd (supra) was related to the claim of bad debts. The assessee wrote off the debt and claimed deduction on the strength of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd (323 ITR 397). However, it was noticed that the debt itself was recovered before the date of filing of return of return and ITA No. 5407 & 5613 Mum 15 - Ms Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) will not apply to the facts of the case. Therefore, in our view, none of the case law relied by ld. DR has relevance with the grounds of appeal raised by assessee. 1…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jullundur Motor Agency (Delhi) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 484/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Ms Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

…e from debtors was, admittedly, written off during the year for which necessary details were also produced before the ld.CIT(A) and, in turn, before the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), has held that claim for bad debt has to be allowed on a mere write off and there is no further need to prove that the amount of debt became bad during the year. In view of the above binding precedent, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.18,35,530/- 7. Last ground of the Departmental app…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jullundur Motor Agency (Delhi) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 6074/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Ms Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

…e from debtors was, admittedly, written off during the year for which necessary details were also produced before the ld.CIT(A) and, in turn, before the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), has held that claim for bad debt has to be allowed on a mere write off and there is no further need to prove that the amount of debt became bad during the year. In view of the above binding precedent, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.18,35,530/- 7. Last ground of the Departmental app…

M/S. Jullundur Motor Agency (Delhi) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 5404/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Ms Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

…e from debtors was, admittedly, written off during the year for which necessary details were also produced before the ld.CIT(A) and, in turn, before the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), has held that claim for bad debt has to be allowed on a mere write off and there is no further need to prove that the amount of debt became bad during the year. In view of the above binding precedent, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.18,35,530/- 7. Last ground of the Departmental app…

Megh Sakariya Internaitonal P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 59/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh

Section 36(1)(ii)

…orised Representative, the sum of "2,02,42,194/- due to the assessee on account of commodity trading done through NSEL was found to be no more recoverable. According to him, by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd vs. CIT, (2010) 323 ITR 397, after 1st April, 1989, it was not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, had become irrecoverable and it was enough if the bad debt was written off as irrecoverable in the books. Thus, according to him, the claim was unjustly disallowed. 6. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the order of the ld. Com…