← 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. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible u/s.36(1)(vii ... amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible under section 36(1)(vii) is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible u/s.36(1)(vii ... amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible under section 36(1)(vii) is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible u/s.36(1)(vii ... amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible under section 36(1)(vii) is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts

Polygel Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1971/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepolygel Industries Pvt. Ltd., V. Pcit – Mumbai – 2 321, The Great Eastern Galleria Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 20, Sector – 4 Mumbai - 400020 Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai Thane - 400706 Pan: Aaack4105F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Selvamani

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Sapana Anil Bhasin, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhsapna Anil Bhasin Vs. Cit (Appeals) 522, B Krishna Niwas, Nfac, Delhi 3Rd Floor, R.P. Masani Road, Matunga, Maharashtra – 400019 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpb1308H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Anil BhasinFor Respondent: Prakash Kishinchandani
Section 141(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 30Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

amount of Rs.1,54,651/-shown as Sundry Balance written off (Bad Debts) are disallowed by the Assessing Officer, that as per the section 36(1)(vii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 Expressed as: Section 36(1) (vii) subject to its proviso, explanation and subject to the provisions of section

M/S. B S R & Co LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Mumbai

ITA 736/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 90

issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the Assessee claimed that deduction for the Bad Debts written off was allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the aforesaid submission of the Assessee and made disallowance

Kewal Kiran Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1532/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.1532/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) Kewal Kiran Enterprises, B-101, Synthofine Estate, Opp. Virwani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Aaafk-2525-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-41(1)(1) Office No.425, 4Th Floor, Kautiliya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi & Ms. Ragnyi Saraf Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan
Section 28Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year under appea,l the assessee claimed bad debts written off under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in respect of loans advanced to following two parties: 3 Party Name Total Amount Principal Amount Interest Amount

Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes for both the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 subject to directions contained in para 11 above

ITA 6073/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 28Section 36(2)

business loss under section 28 accepting the plea raised before him that the said amount is allowable under section 28(i) read with section 36(1)(vii) as normal business loss. The Revenue challenged the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal which reversed the findings ... amount as bad debt in the profit and loss account. It was submitted that the loss is allowable under section 28(i) r.w. section 36(1)(vii) or 37(1) as a normal business loss. Support was derived from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madnani Development Corporation

Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes for both the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 subject to directions contained in para 11 above

ITA 6072/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 28Section 36(2)

business loss under section 28 accepting the plea raised before him that the said amount is allowable under section 28(i) read with section 36(1)(vii) as normal business loss. The Revenue challenged the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal which reversed the findings ... amount as bad debt in the profit and loss account. It was submitted that the loss is allowable under section 28(i) r.w. section 36(1)(vii) or 37(1) as a normal business loss. Support was derived from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madnani Development Corporation

Linfox Logistics (India) Pvt. Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (10)(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 120/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 234CSection 270ASection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

claim made by the Appellant, wherein the above lost stock was claimed as bad debts write-off in the books of accounts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. failed to apply on the judgment of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the Appellant's own case

M/S Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 261/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 147

36(1)(vii) cannot be denied. The Hon’ble SupremeCourt in case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (Supra) has held that post amendmentof section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. 01.04.1989 what is required for claim ofdeduction in respect of bad debts is that the bad debts is written offirrecoverable and there ... position of law is well settled.“After 1-4-1989, for allowing deduction for the amount of any baddebit or part thereof under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, it is notnecessary for assessee to establish that the debit, in fact hasbecome irrecoverable; it is enough if had debit

M/S Nd'S Art World Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 15 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6850/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Nd’S Art World Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Cit-15(2)(1) 201-A Second Level Ventura Shopping Mumbai Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 Pan/Gir No. Aabcn 7882 R (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta : Dr. Samuel Pitta Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36(1)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Ajay Kumar, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaajay Kumar, Vs. Acit, 3046, Sector-28D, Central Circle-20, Chandigarh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adjpk4941N

For Appellant: Shri Atul Ninawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 154Section 36(1)(vii)

debt is upheld and this ground of appeal is dismissed.” Ajay Kumar 6. The ld CIT(A) has considered the requirement of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act and thereafter concluded that the appellant has not involved in any such business activity

Kmi Business Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1399/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)

submit that where the income is already offered to tax, the bad debts need not be proven to be irrecoverable under section 36(1)(vii) and it is sufficient if it is written off in the books. The assessee further relied on various 3 ITA 1399/Mum/2023 KMI Business Technologies

Dy CIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 13, erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 13, 11,50,048/- to the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act to the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in A.Y 2013- -14. 2) On the facts ... erred in allowing appeal of the assessee law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee under section 3 under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, without calling for the 6(1)(vii) of the Act, without calling for the remand report from the assessing officer

M/S the Maharashtra State Co. Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 13, erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 13, 11,50,048/- to the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act to the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in A.Y 2013- -14. 2) On the facts ... erred in allowing appeal of the assessee law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee under section 3 under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, without calling for the 6(1)(vii) of the Act, without calling for the remand report from the assessing officer

DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Uk India Business Council India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3249/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: filing of return replying on the judgment of jurisdiction High Court given in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL. Ltd. without appreciating the judgment given by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cooperation Circle- 3(2), WP No. 5264 of 2018 (Madras), CIT-2, vs. Gujrat State Road Transport Cooperation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and CTT vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Kerala) and CBDT's Circular No. 22/2

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

documentary evidence to show that the amount became Bad Debts and added the same to the income of the assessee in terms of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is the case of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 7,52,685/- could not be recovered from

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 11 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 884/MUM/2003[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 1993-94
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 37(2)Section 46Section 58B

allowed in the earlier years since the same was in excess of the limits specified under Section 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act, has gone uncontroverted in the appellate proceedings before us. Therefore, we concur with the reasoning given by the CIT(A) on this issue ... Section 28 of the Act. Alternatively, it was contended by the Assessee that Assessee should be allowed deduction for the aforesaid amount under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being bad debts. In this regard, the Assessee relied upon Circular dated 27/04/1992, issued by CBDT. 14.2 The Assessing Officer

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd (in Respect of M.S, Icici Ltd Merged With M.S, Icici Bank Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8435/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

reasons for write off of debts of the said companies. 14. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submits that after amendment to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act w.e.f. 01/04/1989, it is not obligatory on the part of assessee to prove that the debt has turned bad, if the debt ... undisputed fact that the assessee has written off bad debts in the books of 12 ITA NO.8435/MUM/2010(A.Y.2003-04) account. The provisions of section 36(1)(vii) were amended w.e.f. 1st April 1989. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd.(supra) after analyzing the provisions of section