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 366,470 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

Sella Synergy India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 958/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.958/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Sella Synergy India Private Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 1Dst Floor, “Elnet Software City”, Vs. Income Tax, Circle Vi(2), Ts-140, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. Taramani, Chennai 600 113. [Pan: Aaccs9750N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Shri Pranith Golecha, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 19.02.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, &For Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…utation of income. As such, the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act has been fulfilled and it is to be allowed as bad debt. In our opinion, if the conditions laid down under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, as laid down in the case of TRF Ltd. v. CIT in 323 ITR 397 (SC), the claim of the assessee has to be allowed. Being so, we remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the fulfillment of conditions laid down under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 4. In the result, the appeal filed…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Parekh Platinum Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4676/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar –CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “सी सी ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई सी सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “ C ”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4676/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 वष" The DCIT, Circle-8(2) M/s. Parekh Platinum Ltd. 50, Bank of India Building, 2nd Floor Room No.216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 185, Sheikh Menon Street…

M/S. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…llowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited (262 ITR 97(Guj.) (ii) Jethahirji and Jethabhaj Ramdas vs. CIT (120 ITR 792)(Bom). (iii) Kamala Cotton vs. CIT (226 ITR 605)(Guj.) (iv) TRF Limited vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC) & (2010) 190 Taxman 321(SC). (v) Southern Technologies Limited vs. Joint CIT (20120) 320 ITR 577 (SC). 10. Regarding disallowance of claim of set off business expenditure/loss against long term capital gain, it is submitted that this claim was disallowed on the ground that there was no business activity of spinning and manufacturing of y…

Sivanandha Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…llowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited (262 ITR 97(Guj.) (ii) Jethahirji and Jethabhaj Ramdas vs. CIT (120 ITR 792)(Bom). (iii) Kamala Cotton vs. CIT (226 ITR 605)(Guj.) (iv) TRF Limited vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC) & (2010) 190 Taxman 321(SC). (v) Southern Technologies Limited vs. Joint CIT (20120) 320 ITR 577 (SC). 10. Regarding disallowance of claim of set off business expenditure/loss against long term capital gain, it is submitted that this claim was disallowed on the ground that there was no business activity of spinning and manufacturing of y…

Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 146/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

For Appellant: Shri RA Bansal & Smt. Prem LataFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR
Section 28Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 48Section 54

…amount of such debt is written off or of an earlier previous year. She placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Autometer Ltd. – 292 ITR 345 (Del.); ii) CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. 292 ITR 339 (Del.); iii) T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT – 323 ITR 397 (SC); 13.2 The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 14. Considering the above submissions, we find that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had reversed professional receipts amounting to Rs.88,300 and reduced that from the income. Assessee claimed that Rs.3,300 was booked as d…

Accel Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 24/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…In value of investments ₹2,39,87,314/- The above details show that the claim made by appellant is not out of provisions but the amount which is actually written off in its P&L a/c. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited (323 ITR 397) (SC) w.e.f. 1.4.89 the moment the bad debts are written off in the books of the appellant they should be allowed as such. As per the provisions of s.36(1 )(vii) and its Explanation read combinedly gives a meaning that any amount of bad & doubtful debts written off in the books of :- 15 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. the appellant as irreco…

Accel Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 23/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…In value of investments ₹2,39,87,314/- The above details show that the claim made by appellant is not out of provisions but the amount which is actually written off in its P&L a/c. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited (323 ITR 397) (SC) w.e.f. 1.4.89 the moment the bad debts are written off in the books of the appellant they should be allowed as such. As per the provisions of s.36(1 )(vii) and its Explanation read combinedly gives a meaning that any amount of bad & doubtful debts written off in the books of :- 15 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. the appellant as irreco…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Accel Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 144/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…In value of investments ₹2,39,87,314/- The above details show that the claim made by appellant is not out of provisions but the amount which is actually written off in its P&L a/c. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited (323 ITR 397) (SC) w.e.f. 1.4.89 the moment the bad debts are written off in the books of the appellant they should be allowed as such. As per the provisions of s.36(1 )(vii) and its Explanation read combinedly gives a meaning that any amount of bad & doubtful debts written off in the books of :- 15 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. the appellant as irreco…

Sparrowhawk International Channels India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6278/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sparrowhawk International Vs. Dcit, Channels India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-9(1), 602, Antriksh Bhawan, New Delhi. Kg Marg, New Delhi. Pan; Aaach6943E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikash Goyal, Ca Department By : Ms Anima Bernwal, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Anima Bernwal, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(vii)

…ion represents the revenues credited to the Profit & Loss Account in earlier years which were not realized and written off during the year for which no deduction was ever claimed in the past. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC), has held that after 1.4.1989 the assessee is not required to establish that the debt has become bad in 2 the previous year and a simple write off is sufficient to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(vii). In view of the fact that the assessee has actually written off the amount of bad debts in its books of account for the instant year, but, omitt…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2005/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(vii)

…2, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; 5 M/s Control Print (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 b…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahajan Industries P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6295/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhoot, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tands allowed." The assessee also gets support from the following judgment 1TW Sugar India Ltd. vs. DC IT 110 TTJ 117(HYD) 1) Poysha Oxygen (P). Ltd. vs. ACIT 10 SOT 711 (Del.) 2) 64 C1T vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. 57 DTR 210 (Del). H.C. 3) TRF Ltd. CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC) 4) Also enclosed please find complete detail of legal and professional charges. 14.2 From the operative part of the assessment order, we note that the AO mainly disallowed the claim of the assessee of bad debts by observing that the assessee’s claim is not acceptable as the debts is not generated as part of money lending business as the as…

M/S Tata Elxsi Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 738/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Mrs Neera Malhotra, CIT-II
Section 10ASection 1OSection 234B

…he disallowance of bad debts because, in any sense, they are unable to recover. It was further submitted that what is required is mere write off in the books of accounts, as relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s TRF Limited Vs CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 and the instant submission is fortified by several decisions. Learned DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. In our view, although, the provisions of IT Act, does permit written off of bad debts but it is important to establish that the debts should actually became bad, meaning thereby, irrecoverable. However before coming to con…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. J.B. Mangaram Foods P./ Td, Mumbai

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

ITA 4876/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Acit, Cir 4(2), J.B. Mangaram Foods P. Ltd., R.No.642, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ 3A Metro Chambers, 6971 Aayakar Bhavan, Trinty Street Gaywadi Vs. M.K. Rd Mumbai-400002 Mumbai- 400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj6157R Revenue By Shri K.Mohandas Cit (Dr) Shri Rajeev Munhet (Ar) Respondent By 17/02/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 11/03/2016

Section 143(3)Section 254

…assessee has written off a sum of Rs.7,66,697/- on account of amounts due from its debtor which was shown as income in the earlier years. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. v. CIT 323 ITR 397. During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee was asked to show that this amount has been actually written off as bad debt, mere creating a provision will not be sufficient, and claim of Bad Debts cannot be allowed under section 36(1) (vii) unless the amount is actually written off in the books of account as bad debts, which is one of…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Budhrani Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the revenue‟s appeals are dismissed and the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4211/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja: (A.Y : 2001-02) Budhrani Finance Ltd., Vs Dcit, 94, Maker Chambers-Vi, Nariman Central Circle - 30, Point, Mumbai 400 021. Mumbai (Respondent) Pan : Aaacb2504R (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2001-02)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 73

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : (A.Y : 2001-02) Budhrani Finance Ltd., Vs DCIT, 94, Maker Chambers-VI, Nariman Central Circle - 30, Point, Mumbai 400 021. Mumbai (Respondent) PAN : AAACB2504R (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2001-02) DCIT, Vs Budhrani Finance Ltd., Range 3(1), Mumbai 94, Maker Chambers-VI, (Appellant) Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. PAN : AAACB2504R (Respondent) : (A.Y : 2001-02) DCIT, Vs Budhrani Finance Ltd., Circle 3(1), Mumbai 94, Maker Chambers-VI, (Appellant) Nariman Point, Mumbai 400…

M/S. Budhrani Finance P. Ltd vs. The ITO WD-3(1)(2)

In the result, both the revenue‟s appeals are dismissed and the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 380/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja: (A.Y : 2001-02) Budhrani Finance Ltd., Vs Dcit, 94, Maker Chambers-Vi, Nariman Central Circle - 30, Point, Mumbai 400 021. Mumbai (Respondent) Pan : Aaacb2504R (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2001-02)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 73

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : (A.Y : 2001-02) Budhrani Finance Ltd., Vs DCIT, 94, Maker Chambers-VI, Nariman Central Circle - 30, Point, Mumbai 400 021. Mumbai (Respondent) PAN : AAACB2504R (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2001-02) DCIT, Vs Budhrani Finance Ltd., Range 3(1), Mumbai 94, Maker Chambers-VI, (Appellant) Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. PAN : AAACB2504R (Respondent) : (A.Y : 2001-02) DCIT, Vs Budhrani Finance Ltd., Circle 3(1), Mumbai 94, Maker Chambers-VI, (Appellant) Nariman Point, Mumbai 400…

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Budhrani Finance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the revenue‟s appeals are dismissed and the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 185/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja: (A.Y : 2001-02) Budhrani Finance Ltd., Vs Dcit, 94, Maker Chambers-Vi, Nariman Central Circle - 30, Point, Mumbai 400 021. Mumbai (Respondent) Pan : Aaacb2504R (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2001-02)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 73

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : (A.Y : 2001-02) Budhrani Finance Ltd., Vs DCIT, 94, Maker Chambers-VI, Nariman Central Circle - 30, Point, Mumbai 400 021. Mumbai (Respondent) PAN : AAACB2504R (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2001-02) DCIT, Vs Budhrani Finance Ltd., Range 3(1), Mumbai 94, Maker Chambers-VI, (Appellant) Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. PAN : AAACB2504R (Respondent) : (A.Y : 2001-02) DCIT, Vs Budhrani Finance Ltd., Circle 3(1), Mumbai 94, Maker Chambers-VI, (Appellant) Nariman Point, Mumbai 400…

Sh. Mukand Lal, Kurukshetra vs. ACIT(Central), Gurgaon

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

ITA 6017/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Ble V.P. & Sri C.M.Garg, Jm Ita No. 6017/Del./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ankur Gurg, CIT, DR
Section 36Section 36(2)

…o avoid tax liability on surrendered amount. The ld. Counsel of the assessee also drawn our attention towards para 4.4 of the assessment order and submitted that as per ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. TRF ltd. reported as 323 ITR 397 (SC). 4. Replying to the above the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the action of the AO as well as impugned order and contended that there was a huge surrender by the assessee during search operation conducted on 21.08.2007 and undisputedly and admittedly the assessee for the very first time since inception of his business has clai…

Prime Focus Ltd.., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. (Ods) C. RG. 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 8364/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhi.T.A. No.8364/M/2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) C.O.233/M/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.8066/M/2011) (Ay 2008-09) Prime Focus Limited, फनाभ/ Dcit (Osd-1), 1S T Floor, Old Dubbing & Central Range, Aayakar Vs. Recording Studio Building, Bhavan, Marine Lines, Dadasaheb Phalke Chitra Mumbai – 400 020. Nagari,Filmcity Campus, Opposite Hotel Food Paradise, Filmcity, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 065. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacp6811B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar, DR
Section 14ASection 234D

…edings and submitted that as per the conditions laid down in section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Act, the assessee is eligible for deduction on account of bad debts. Assessee also relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited (323 ITR 397) (SC) apart from many other decisions mentioned in para 5.11 of the note furnished by the assessee. On appreciating the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee as per the discussion given in paras 5 to 5.7 of his order. For the sake of completeness of this order, relevant para 5.7 is extracted as under:- “5.7. The Ld…

N L C Nalco India Ltd Previously Known As Ondeo Nalco India Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir - 11, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1256/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…estion had actually become bad, in order to be entitled to the deduction envisaged in section 36(1) (vii) of the Act with respect to the same. Reference made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd v CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that post 1st April, 1989 it is not necessary for any assessee to establish that the debt in fact has become bad. It is further held that if the debt has been written off in the books of accounts then it would be enough to allow the deduction. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v…

Nlc Nalco India Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 529/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Mallikarjuna &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…estion had actually become bad, in order to be entitled to the deduction envisaged in section 36(1) (vii) of the Act with respect to the same. Reference made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd v CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that post 1st April, 1989 it is not necessary for any assessee to establish that the debt in fact has become bad. It is further held that if the debt has been written off in the books of accounts then it would be enough to allow the deduction. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v…