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 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 147 Section 14A Section 36(2)Section 148 Section 40(a)(ia)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)business expediency section 36(1)section 36 commercial expediency revenue expenditure disallowance under section 14a capital expenditure section 28 section 115j section 14a

Judgments citing TRF Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Chennai vs. Dymos Lear Automotive India Pvt Ltd., Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for 8

ITA 1931/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. B. Lakshminarayanan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Rahunathan Sampath, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…(vii) of the Act and discussed in his order at length and concluded that amount subjected to TDS in earlier years and eligible for deduction for Bad debts and relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of T.R.F. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC) held that after 01.04.1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to ITA No. 1931/Mds/2015. :- 6 -: establish that the debt, in fact has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the Bad Debts is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. After elaborate submissions and discussions by the ld. Authorised Representative, the…

ACIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai vs. J.E. Exports, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4529/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Traishawalla

Section 10ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ses, ITA No.532/LKW/2010, order dated 29-12-2010, wherein similar claim was allowed. 6. We have considered rival contentions and found that assessee’s claim of bad debts is eligible for deduction as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd.323 ITR 397. Merely because assessee has claimed and allowed deduction in respect of its profit u/s.10A in the earlier year, cannot be made reason for disallowing assessee’s valid claim for bad debts. Accordingly, following the reasoning given by the CIT(A) vis-à-vis order of the Tribunal as discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A…

Exide Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 189/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 40Section 90(2)

…ture of bad debts and the same, therefore, are allowable alternatively under section 36(1)(vii) having written off by the assessee in the books of account as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited –vs.- CIT reported in 323 ITR 397. 18. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that no specific details or supporting evidence could be furnished by the assessee to substantiate its claim for liquidated damages. He contended that in the absence of such details and documents, the claim of the assessee for higher liquidated damages as compared to the immediately preceding year w…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Integrated Finance Company Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for 9

ITA 1430/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Vivekanandan, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…rated submissions that such sum represented the amount written off as irrecoverable and represents the balance after settlement in the parties accounts and also relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of T.R.F. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC. Further, the ld. Authorised Representative filed written submissions and supported his arguments and furnished list of rebates on hire purchase exceeding "1 lakh amounting to "1.33 crores against 13 parties and also furnished ledger extracts of respective hire purchase accounts. The assessee also furnished list of major hire purchase acc…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Siemes Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7181/MUM/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…which has already been accounted for in earlier years, therefore, there is no reason to decline the claim of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii). The issue of allowing of claim of bad debts is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd., 323 ITR 397 (SC). However, in respect of payment on which TDS Certificate has not issued by the deductors, is to be considered for deduction as business loss. To this extent, we restore the matter back to the file of the AO for deciding alternative claim of business loss.” Ground no.5 filed by the assessee stands allowed. ITA No.7181/Mum/2013: 7.First ground…

DCIT vs. Treads Direct Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2941/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate

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

…s an unilateral act on the part of the assessee to write off all these amount without bring any material on record to show that amount are not recoverable. We rely on the decision of Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC) and also similar issue was dealt by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of South India Surgical Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (2006) 287 ITR 62 (Mad) where it was held as under:- ‘’It is not sufficient for the assessee to say that he became pessimistic about the prospect of recovery of the debt in question. He must feel honestly convinced that th…

Treadsdirect Limited, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2794/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate

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

Toscana Lasts Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 670/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Toscana Lasts Ltd., Vs. Ito, (Since Amalgamated With Avantha Ward 16(3), Reality Ltd.), Thapar House, New Delhi. 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaact3805H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs. Toscana Lasts Ltd., Ward 16(3), (Since Amalgamated With New Delhi. Avantha Reality Ltd.), Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaact3805H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj K. Chopra, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

…pellate proceedings. The Learned AR submitted that 5 sufficient evidences were there to support the claimed expenses regarding the disallowance of bad debts written off, the Learned AR cited the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd., 323 ITR 297 (S.C) holding that a bona fide right off of the bad debt is enough to treat the amount as dead. Under the new provisions of law, the only aspect is as to whether the amount of bad debts was offered for taxation in earlier years is crucial but unfortunately the lower authorities below did not bother themselves to look into this aspect. He subm…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2967/KOL/2003[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Ghosh, FCA & Sjhri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 29Section 30Section 37

…in this connection can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs CIT & Anr. (2010) 231 CTR (SC) 209 : (2010) 37 DTR (SC)401 (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) and T.R.F.Ltd vs CIT (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 14 : (2010) 35 DTR (SC) 156 : (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC).” 7. The next decision is the decision rendered by ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Andhra bank vs DCIT in ITA No.218/H/10 order dated 04.04.2013. In the aforesaid decision ITAT took the following view :- “59. The next is regarding deduction of Rs.23600000 being unrealized interest on NPA which is reduced from the interest income. The a…

D.C.I.T. Cir - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S Fives Stein India Projects Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/KOL/2013[2009-10 & 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…e by him before the Learned CIT(A). He further argued that name given to a transaction by the parties does not necessarily decide the nature of the transaction. He relied on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- a) TRF Ltd vs CIT reported in 323 ITR 397 (SC) b) Inland Revenue Commisisoner vs Weleyan General Assurance Society reported in 16 ITR (Suppl) 101 (HL) c) Mcdowell & Co Ltd vs CTO reported in 59 STC 277 (SC) d) CIT vs BM Kharwar reported in 72 ITR 603 (SC) ITA No.91/Kol/2011-C-AM 2 M/s. Fives Stein (I) Projects P.Ltd e) Sir Kikabhai Premchand case reported in 24 ITR 506 (SC) In respo…

M/S Brijnath Khandelwal & Co, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 34, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…I.T.A. No. 392/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 392/KOL/ 2013 Assessment Year : 2006-2007 M/s. Brijnath Khandelwal & Co.,......................................Appellant C/o. G.R. Sharma, Advocate, 7, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 [PAN : AADFB 6267 H] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,..............................Respondent Circle-34, Kolkata, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 Appearances by: Shri S.M. Surana, Advoca…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Grameen Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 949/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Shesadri, CA

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…. 22. We have heard both the parties. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Krone Communication Ltd., 333 ITR 497 (Karn) decided the issue in favour of the assessee, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd., 323 ITR 397 (SC) wherein it was held that after 1.4.1989, it was not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable; it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Krone Communica…

JCIT(OSD), Circle -4, Kolkata vs. M/S Gillander Arbithnot & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Shri Sunil Surana, ACA

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…ingly, assessee claimed the same as bad debt. But the AO disallowed the claim of bad debt. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC) and also of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in assessee’s own case reported in (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) by observing as under: “9.1. Company is a renowned old company having multifarious business activities such as owing tea gardens, Textile Business, Construction activities and it is also engaged in trading activities. In addition to above, t…

Next Media Works Ltd (Formerly Knwon Midday Multimedia Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 2738/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan

Section 115Section 14Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “B” BENCH सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं श""जीत डे, "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.2738/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 M/s. Next Media Works Ltd. The DCIT-5(2) (Formerly known as Midday Room No.571 Multimedia Ltd.) Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg C.O. Inquilab Offset Printers Ltd. New Marine Lines 156, D.J. Dadajee Road, Mumbai-400 020. Behind Everest Building, Tardeo Mumbai-400 020. PAN: AAACM 7512 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/As…

Summit Investments Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Spl. RG-16, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/KOL/1999[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2015AY 1995-1996

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri J.P Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee,JCIT, ld.DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…e irreovcoverable as bad debts and hence the assessee was entitled to the benefit under section 36(1)(vii). The question as to whether a debt had become bad or not was a pure question of fact and, therefore, it could not be construed as a question of law. “ • 323 ITR 397(SC) TRF Ltd Vs. CIT “BAD DEBT-LAW AFTER APRIL 1, 1989- ASSESSEE ONLY TO ESTABLISH THAT DEBT WAS WRITTEN OFF- NOT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THAT DEBT IN FACT HAD BECOME IRRECOVERABLE – INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, s. 36 (1)(vii). After the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1989, in order to obtain a deduc…

ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Progressive Stock Management Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1487/KOL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2003-04 (Appellant ) (Respondent) I.T.O., Ward-1(2) -Versus- M/S. Progressive Stock Management Kolkata Co.Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata (Pan:Aabcp 5590 J) For The Appellant : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Jcit For The Respondent : Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 136/Cit(A)-I/Wd-1(2)/05-06 Dated 19.05.2006 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment For The Asst Year 2003-04 Framed By The Learned Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCITFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ecome irrecoverable as bad debts and hence the assessee was entitled to the benefit under section 36(1)(vii). The question as to whether a debt had become bad or not was a pure question of fact and, therefore, it could not be construed as a question of law.” 323 ITR 397 (SC) TRF Ltd “BAD DEBT-LAW AFTER APRIL 1, 1989 – ASSESSEE ONLY TO ESTABLISH THAT DEBT WAS WRITTEN OFF – NOT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THAT DEBT IN FACT HAD BECOME IRRECOVERABLE – INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, s.36(1)(vii). After the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1989, in order to obtain a deduction i…

DCIT, Circle - 34, Kolkata vs. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and the cross objections of assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 886/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Biswas, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, & Shri Sujoy Sen

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.882/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/s. Banwarilall Pasari Circle-34, Kolkata. (PAN:AACFB7611A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & CO No. 48/Kol/2010 In I.T.A No.882/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Banwarilall Pasari Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-34, Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.886/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/s. Banwarilall Pasari Circle-34, Kolkata. (PAN:AACFB7611A) (App…

DCIT, Circle - 34, Kolkata vs. M/S. Banwarilall Pasari, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and the cross objections of assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 882/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2015AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Biswas, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, & Shri Sujoy Sen

Section 143(3)

DCIT vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ITA Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s.United Spirits Ltd., 6th floor, UB Towers, UB City, 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001. … Appellant PAN: AACCM8043J Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore. … Respondent AND ITA Nos.652 & 653(Bang)/2013 (Assessment years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore. … Appellant…

DCIT vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George & Ita Nos.424 & 605(Bang)/2013 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 14A