TRF Ltd. v. CIT

323 ITR 397Supreme Court of India2010#71 most cited

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.

714

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

TRF Ltd. v. CIT · section 36(1)(vii) · bad debts · deduction · irrecoverable · written off · assessee's accounts · income tax act

Also reported as

190 Taxmann 391230 CTR 14190 Taxmann.com 391

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 147Section 14ASection 36(2)Section 148Section 40(a)(ia)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)business expediencysection 36(1)section 36commercial expediencyrevenue expendituredisallowance under section 14acapital expendituresection 28section 115jsection 14a

Judgments citing TRF Ltd. v. CIT

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…e contended that the assessee is not required to demonstrate whether debts have actually become bad or not. In support of his contention, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC). The ld.DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 73. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. A perusal of the finding of the ld.CIT(A) recorded in para 7.3 would show that the assessee itself admitted before the ld.CIT(A) that this amount is not allowable under section 36(2) of the Act. In oth…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 817/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…e contended that the assessee is not required to demonstrate whether debts have actually become bad or not. In support of his contention, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC). The ld.DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 73. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. A perusal of the finding of the ld.CIT(A) recorded in para 7.3 would show that the assessee itself admitted before the ld.CIT(A) that this amount is not allowable under section 36(2) of the Act. In oth…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 773/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…e contended that the assessee is not required to demonstrate whether debts have actually become bad or not. In support of his contention, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC). The ld.DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 73. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. A perusal of the finding of the ld.CIT(A) recorded in para 7.3 would show that the assessee itself admitted before the ld.CIT(A) that this amount is not allowable under section 36(2) of the Act. In oth…

The DCIT(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 692/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…e contended that the assessee is not required to demonstrate whether debts have actually become bad or not. In support of his contention, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC). The ld.DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 73. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the record. A perusal of the finding of the ld.CIT(A) recorded in para 7.3 would show that the assessee itself admitted before the ld.CIT(A) that this amount is not allowable under section 36(2) of the Act. In oth…

Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Protego India P.Ld, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1268/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Protego India Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 665, Midc Complex, Income Tax-15(2)(2), बिधम/ Rabale, Ttc Industrial Area, Room No. 403, 4Th Floor, Navi Mumbai 400 701 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacp2657F (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…vation of the A.O that as the stock was a balance sheet item, therefore, the writing-off of the same as a revenue loss was not justified. The CIT(A) in order to support his aforesaid view observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT 323 ITR 397 (S.C) had held that ‘bad debt’ which also was a balance sheet item was to be allowed as a revenue P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1268/Mum/2016 A.Y 2012-13 The Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax-15(2)(2) Vs. M/s Protego India Pvt. Ltd. expenditure. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the CIT(A) concluded that as the stock under consideration was pro…

Asst CIT 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanfield India P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 975/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.86/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sanfield India Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income 501, Eva Andheri Chs Tax Circle-8(3) बनाम/ Plot No.10, V.P.Road Room No.204, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. S.V.Road, Near Shriram School M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-5832-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.975/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sanfield India Limited Tax-11(1)(2) 501, Eva Andheri Chs बनाम/ Room No.204, Aaykar Bhavan Plot No.10, V.P.Road Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Opp. S.V. Road, Near Shriram School Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-5832-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Kapil K. Jain, Ld.ARFor Respondent: M.V.Rajguru, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…ITA Nos.86 & 975/Mum/2015 Sanfield India Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ई” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI जोिग"र िसंह,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.86/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sanfield India Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income 501, EVA Andheri CHS Tax Circle-8(3) बनाम/ Plot No.10, V.P.Road Room No.204, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. S.V.Road, Near Shriram School M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 "थायीलेखासं./ज…

Sanofield (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 86/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.86/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sanfield India Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income 501, Eva Andheri Chs Tax Circle-8(3) बनाम/ Plot No.10, V.P.Road Room No.204, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. S.V.Road, Near Shriram School M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-5832-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.975/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sanfield India Limited Tax-11(1)(2) 501, Eva Andheri Chs बनाम/ Room No.204, Aaykar Bhavan Plot No.10, V.P.Road Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Opp. S.V. Road, Near Shriram School Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-5832-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Kapil K. Jain, Ld.ARFor Respondent: M.V.Rajguru, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…ITA Nos.86 & 975/Mum/2015 Sanfield India Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ई” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI जोिग"र िसंह,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.86/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sanfield India Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income 501, EVA Andheri CHS Tax Circle-8(3) बनाम/ Plot No.10, V.P.Road Room No.204, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. S.V.Road, Near Shriram School M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 058 "थायीलेखासं./ज…

Narpatkumar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3139/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3139/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Narpatkumar, Non Corporate Ward 12(1) No.163, Pycrofts Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 014. [Pan Aabpk 3188Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

…accounts and was not ripe for write off. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, though assessee raised this issue before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd vs. CIT, (2010) 323 ITR 397, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not accept the claim. Ld. Authorised Representative relying on paper book, page No.4 submitted that assessee had written off amounts due from four parties namely M/s. Steel Strips Wheels Ltd "1,500.66, M/s. Coromandel International Ltd "22,287.03, M/s. True Lock Hyoromatics Pvt. Ltd "1,98,106.15…

India Medtronic P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 7555/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.7555/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) India Medtronic Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park Income Tax-8(2) बनाम/ Building No.12,4T H Floor Mumbai Vs. Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road Andheri (East),Mumbai-400 093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-4227-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Rajan R Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, Ld. Ar’S Revenue By : V.Jenardhanan, Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Rajan R Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, Ld. AR’sFor Respondent: v.Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…ritten off for Rs.67,05,411/-. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the additional evidences to submit that the impugned expenditure was nothing but bad debts written-off and hence allowable in terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT [323 ITR 397]. We find that since the said disallowance has been made by lower authorities for want of adequate information / details, the issue needs to be remitted back to the file of Ld. AO in the light of additional evidences submitted by the assessee. We order so. The assessee is directed to substantiate his claim in this regard. This ground stand allowe…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8127/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…es/bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, the position of law seems to 9164/Mum/2010,(2006-07)-Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.+5appls have been settled by the apex court in the case of T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) wherein it was held as under (page 398) : "This position in law is well-settled. After April 1, 1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has became irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. However, in the present case, the Assessing Off…

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 7098/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 254(1)

…es/bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, after its amendment with effect from April 1, 1989, the position of law seems to 9164/Mum/2010,(2006-07)-Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.+5appls have been settled by the apex court in the case of T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) wherein it was held as under (page 398) : "This position in law is well-settled. After April 1, 1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has became irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. However, in the present case, the Assessing Off…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Tirupathi vs. M/S. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Tirupathi

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

ITA 1533/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member M/s. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Distribution Company of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 PAN: AAHCS 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner of Vs M/s. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati PAN: AAHCS 4056 Q For Assessee : Shri A.V. Raghuram For Revenue : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR Dates of Hearing: 06/04/2017, 05/01/2018 & 23/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement…

M/S. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1460/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member M/s. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Distribution Company of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 PAN: AAHCS 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner of Vs M/s. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati PAN: AAHCS 4056 Q For Assessee : Shri A.V. Raghuram For Revenue : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR Dates of Hearing: 06/04/2017, 05/01/2018 & 23/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement…

M/S Amit Spinning Industres Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2720/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Amit Spinning Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 1(1) Lotus House, 507, 5Th Floor Mumbai 33-A, New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca3305M Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah Revenue By Shri R.P. Meena

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…he advances given in the course of business so as to justify that income relating to such bad debts have already been accounted for in the earlier years. AO is directed to decide the issue in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd., 323 ITR 397 . We direct accordingly. 5 M/s. Amit Spinning Industries Ltd., 11. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25/04/2018 (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 25/04/2018 Karuna Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant 1. The Respondent. 2. The CIT(A…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Fgp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4432/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…d the Assessing Officer to allow the bad debts of ₹.1,69,34,774/- as deduction. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the 3 ITA.No. 4432/MUM/2016 (A.Y:2012-13) M/s. FGP Limited Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F Ltd v. CIT [323 ITR 397], wherein it has been held that assessee is not required to establish that the debt as bad as long as assessee has debited the same in its books of accounts the same should be allowed as deduction. 5. Before us, Ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly support…

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)

…ting agency of the Government was no ground for disallowing the expenditure. It was not open to the department to prescribe what expenditure the assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure.” In the case of TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397) (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “After 01.04.1989, for allowing deduction for the amount of any bad debt or part thereof under section 36(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 accoun…

Tetra Pak India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 521/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…the ld. AR submitted that similar disallowance was made in assessment year 2010-11 in assessee’s own case. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance by following decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 323 ITR 397. 6.2 In respect of ground No. 3 relating to disallowance of Rs.9,44,43,764/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made in exhaustive grounds of appeal. The ld. AR submitted that separate proceedings u/s. 201 were initiated against the assessee. The assessee has filed appeal u/s. 201 before the Commissioner of Income Tax…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 665/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…the ld. AR submitted that similar disallowance was made in assessment year 2010-11 in assessee’s own case. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance by following decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 323 ITR 397. 6.2 In respect of ground No. 3 relating to disallowance of Rs.9,44,43,764/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made in exhaustive grounds of appeal. The ld. AR submitted that separate proceedings u/s. 201 were initiated against the assessee. The assessee has filed appeal u/s. 201 before the Commissioner of Income Tax…

Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

ITA 635/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…the ld. AR submitted that similar disallowance was made in assessment year 2010-11 in assessee’s own case. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance by following decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 323 ITR 397. 6.2 In respect of ground No. 3 relating to disallowance of Rs.9,44,43,764/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made in exhaustive grounds of appeal. The ld. AR submitted that separate proceedings u/s. 201 were initiated against the assessee. The assessee has filed appeal u/s. 201 before the Commissioner of Income Tax…

M/S. Xebec Communications Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 152/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.152/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Xebec Communications Pvt. Ltd., 20, Santosh Heights, 39/4, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant J N Marg, Pune - 411037 …. Pan: Aaacx0223B Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 7, Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Suhas P. Bora प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar Chaware

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं, श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.152/PUN/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. Xebec Communications Pvt. Ltd., 20, Santosh Heights, 39/4, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant J N Marg, Pune - 411037 …. PAN: AAACX0223B Vs. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 7, Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Suhas P. Bora प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Sh…