← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(vii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)853 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(vii) is TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397), cited in 714 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii)

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

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.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
347 ITR 272 · 2012 · High Court
516
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts before making any disallowance.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 1 · 1959 · Supreme Court
341
citing judgments

When following the mercantile system of accounting, provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as deductions, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 270 · 2012 · Supreme Court
326
citing judgments

For a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), the debt must be actually written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, distinct from merely making a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee bears the onus to satisfy the conditions under both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act.

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(vii)

M/S.Hdb Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

deduction claimed u/s. 80JJAA of the Act should not be disallowed and also as to why the first proviso of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act should not be applied in I.T.A No. 177/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 M/s. HDB Financial Services Ltd. . vs. PCIT the case ... amounting to Rs.224,81,43,124/- claimed by the assessee company should also be decided on the basis of the first proviso to section 36(1)(vii) and clause (v) to section 36(2)of the Act which are clearly applicable to the assessee company as the assessee company

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

course of business of banking. The relevant observation of the AO is extracted below: “(i) It is observed that as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee is allowed deduction of any amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts ... order of the AO to submit that the credit card written off as bad debts cannot be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) for the reason that the assessee accounts for income from credit card only to the extent of commission and not the entire amount paid towards

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

course of business of banking. The relevant observation of the AO is extracted below: “(i) It is observed that as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee is allowed deduction of any amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts ... order of the AO to submit that the credit card written off as bad debts cannot be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) for the reason that the assessee accounts for income from credit card only to the extent of commission and not the entire amount paid towards

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

course of business of banking. The relevant observation of the AO is extracted below: “(i) It is observed that as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee is allowed deduction of any amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts ... order of the AO to submit that the credit card written off as bad debts cannot be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) for the reason that the assessee accounts for income from credit card only to the extent of commission and not the entire amount paid towards

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

course of business of banking. The relevant observation of the AO is extracted below: “(i) It is observed that as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee is allowed deduction of any amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts ... order of the AO to submit that the credit card written off as bad debts cannot be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) for the reason that the assessee accounts for income from credit card only to the extent of commission and not the entire amount paid towards

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

course of business of banking. The relevant observation of the AO is extracted below: “(i) It is observed that as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee is allowed deduction of any amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts ... order of the AO to submit that the credit card written off as bad debts cannot be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) for the reason that the assessee accounts for income from credit card only to the extent of commission and not the entire amount paid towards

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

course of business of banking. The relevant observation of the AO is extracted below: “(i) It is observed that as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee is allowed deduction of any amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts ... order of the AO to submit that the credit card written off as bad debts cannot be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) for the reason that the assessee accounts for income from credit card only to the extent of commission and not the entire amount paid towards

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited (Formerly Known As Manthan Software Services Pvt Ltd), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

ITA 946/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

loss account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). [See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala ... including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited (Formerly Known As Manthan Software Services Pvt Ltd), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

ITA 945/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

loss account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). [See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala ... including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited (Formerly Known As Manthan Software Services Pvt Ltd), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

ITA 944/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

loss account of the assessee and crediting the amount to the account of the debtor, the assessee was still entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). [See CIT v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala ... including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that any bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee will not include any provision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited (Formerly Known As Manthan Software Services Pvt Ltd), Bangalore

ITA 943/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar JainFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

loss and not allowable as trading loss, much less bad-debt. e) The sections which governs the allowability of the bad debts is Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2). As per the provisions of the Income tax Act, no deduction by way of bad debts should be allowed unless ... income including interest/discount or any other charges on NPA shall be recognized only when it is actually realized. The Ld. Counsel referred to section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2) of the Act and submitted that the bad debt claimed by the assessee represented money lent in the ordinary

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

loss and not allowable as trading loss, much less bad-debt. e) The sections which governs the allowability of the bad debts is Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2). As per the provisions of the Income tax Act, no deduction by way of bad debts should be allowed unless ... income including interest/discount or any other charges on NPA shall be recognized only when it is actually realized. The Ld. Counsel referred to section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2) of the Act and submitted that the bad debt claimed by the assessee represented money lent in the ordinary

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Briggs Trading Co, P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

loss and not allowable as trading loss, much less bad-debt. e) The sections which governs the allowability of the bad debts is Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2). As per the provisions of the Income tax Act, no deduction by way of bad debts should be allowed unless ... income including interest/discount or any other charges on NPA shall be recognized only when it is actually realized. The Ld. Counsel referred to section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2) of the Act and submitted that the bad debt claimed by the assessee represented money lent in the ordinary

DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi vs. Nidhi Builders (International) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3950/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,41,59,848/- made by the Assessing Officer (the AO) under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) when the assessee had failed to prove that amount was Page 1 of 11 actually ... trading liability and the corresponding amount was actually offered as income in earlier years and without considering the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Act? ii. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 933/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

Revenue claiming satisfaction of the conditions for a write off (of a bad debt as irrecoverable) in accounts, i.e., as mandated by section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, and the law laid down per the cited decisions, i.e., where effected not directly by a debit to the operating statement ... profits arrived at on commercial principles subject to the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, if by the Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) a provision for doubtful debt is kept out of the ambit of the bad debt which is written off then, one has to take into

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.84/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(3)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

M/S Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. The ITO, Corportion Ward-3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 388/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.388/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 143(3)

questioning the finding of the Accountant Member of the Tribunal that the claim can also be allowed as a bad debt falling under section 36(1)(vii) as well as an expenditure wholly incurred for the purpose of business falling under section 37(1), we feel that

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 210/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.210/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 207/CHNY/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.206/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.207/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 143(3)Section 43B

questioning the finding of the Accountant Member of the Tribunal that the claim can also be allowed as a bad debt falling under section 36(1)(vii) as well as an expenditure wholly incurred for the purpose of business falling under section 37(1), we feel that