← 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)

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Chennai vs. Emerald Haven Reality Ltd, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 38/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

advances are transactions on capital account and therefore, the loss suffered by the assessee is capital loss which is neither admissible under section 36(1)(vii) nor under section 37(1) of the Act. The order of the assessing officer was confirmed by the CIT(A), on the premise that

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Chennai vs. Emerald Haven Reality Ltd, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 37/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

advances are transactions on capital account and therefore, the loss suffered by the assessee is capital loss which is neither admissible under section 36(1)(vii) nor under section 37(1) of the Act. The order of the assessing officer was confirmed by the CIT(A), on the premise that

Emerald Haven Realty Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 634/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

advances are transactions on capital account and therefore, the loss suffered by the assessee is capital loss which is neither admissible under section 36(1)(vii) nor under section 37(1) of the Act. The order of the assessing officer was confirmed by the CIT(A), on the premise that

ACIT-Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. D A Finvest P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle-15(1)(2) Vs. M/S D.A. Finvest Pvt. Room No. 483, 4 Th Floor, Ltd., 65, Mahavir Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Sector 17, Dbc, M.K. Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 400 075 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcd0420B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: None
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

ITA No.1296/Mum/2021 AY. 2015-16 1 ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2) Vs. M/s D.A. Finvest Pvt Ltd. IN THE INCOME

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 126/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 12, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 125/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S

Udayakumar Sangeetha, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Circle-1, Ooty

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 527/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Prasanna Bhaskaran (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143Section 36(1)(vii)

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

Spero Property Management, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3070/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

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

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The DIT (I.T), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3345/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

observed that while allowing the bad debts written off without provision in the account as above the requirement as per the proviso to section 36(1)(vii), the deduction relating to any debt or part thereof shall be limited to the credit balance under the provision account in terms ... section 36(1)(vii) had not been looked into. Further, he observed that allowable deduction of bad debts written off would be to the extent or excess over credit balance available in provision account u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and since ₹.2,23,90,550/-had been allowed

K Harish Kumar, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 269/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri K. Harish Kumar, The Assistant No. 152/2, 2Nd Floor, Commissioner Of Wheelers Road, Income Tax, Frazer Town, Circle – 1(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 005. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Agrpk0615Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hemant Pai, Ca : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Kokan Mercantila Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-20(2), Mumbai

In the result we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct to allow the deduction u/s

ITA 651/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Harbour Crest, 1St Floor, Mazagaon, Mumbai-400010. Pan: Aaaak2527P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-20(2), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.12.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. M. Subramanian, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)

upon the other for the extension of the benefit.A provision had been made for deduction of provisions for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(vii)(c) independent of section 36(1)(viii) which provide for deduction upto 40 per cent for special reserve created by assessee providing long

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), Mumbai

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

ITA 3033/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

case of State Bank of Mysore (supra), the assessee had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Bangalore Tribunal has held that section 41(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. Sections 41(1 ... respect of a write off claimed and allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in the earlier years. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that principally the assessee is entitled

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2873/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

case of State Bank of Mysore (supra), the assessee had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Bangalore Tribunal has held that section 41(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. Sections 41(1 ... respect of a write off claimed and allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in the earlier years. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that principally the assessee is entitled

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

assessment year 199899. Since the methodology followed by the assessee to write off was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it's claim was not allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner ... loss account and order entry is by way of reduction of such sum from the total debtors account. Thus, the provision of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act is duly complied with and therefore the appellate Commissioner was justified in allowing the claim of bad debt. Aggrieved

Titan Industries Limited, Hosur vs. JCIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2239/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana (Sr. Advocate) for Ms. Manasa Ananthan (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92A(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

ACIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3864/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

situation, then such debts could not be included for the purposes of (a) to (d) and resultantly should have been taken to section 36(1)(vii)/(via) of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion hereinabove, the contentions and submissions of the assessee

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asst. CIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Aarti VisanjiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43D

situation, then such debts could not be included for the purposes of (a) to (d) and resultantly should have been taken to section 36(1)(vii)/(via) of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion hereinabove, the contentions and submissions of the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Mindlogix Infotech Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1414/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

computation of income in any assessment year including the present assessment years. Being so, unless and until fulfilled all the above conditions in section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act cumulatively, the claim of assessee as bad debt cannot be considered. On this reason, we hold that

M/S Mindlogicx Infotech Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1255/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

computation of income in any assessment year including the present assessment years. Being so, unless and until fulfilled all the above conditions in section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act cumulatively, the claim of assessee as bad debt cannot be considered. On this reason, we hold that

Smt Asha Devi Poddar, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 687/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

chosen to write off Rs.1,79,73,982/- as bad debts. He submitted that the assessee has duly complied with provisions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act and hence claim of the assessee is allowable as bad debts as held in the case