← 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)

Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2749/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

Pheonix Impex Pvt Ltd 71,99,970 1,92,99,910 The details are enclosed at APB PAGE 86. Considering section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the assessee has written off bad debts as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour ... books as irrecoverable from specific debtors during the year under consideration. The write-off fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to be deleted. In view of the above findings, both the substantive

Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2748/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

Pheonix Impex Pvt Ltd 71,99,970 1,92,99,910 The details are enclosed at APB PAGE 86. Considering section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the assessee has written off bad debts as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour ... books as irrecoverable from specific debtors during the year under consideration. The write-off fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to be deleted. In view of the above findings, both the substantive

Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2747/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

Pheonix Impex Pvt Ltd 71,99,970 1,92,99,910 The details are enclosed at APB PAGE 86. Considering section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the assessee has written off bad debts as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour ... books as irrecoverable from specific debtors during the year under consideration. The write-off fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to be deleted. In view of the above findings, both the substantive

Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2746/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

Pheonix Impex Pvt Ltd 71,99,970 1,92,99,910 The details are enclosed at APB PAGE 86. Considering section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the assessee has written off bad debts as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour ... books as irrecoverable from specific debtors during the year under consideration. The write-off fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to be deleted. In view of the above findings, both the substantive

Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 2745/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

Pheonix Impex Pvt Ltd 71,99,970 1,92,99,910 The details are enclosed at APB PAGE 86. Considering section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the assessee has written off bad debts as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour ... books as irrecoverable from specific debtors during the year under consideration. The write-off fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to be deleted. In view of the above findings, both the substantive

Shrilekha Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 2744/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

Pheonix Impex Pvt Ltd 71,99,970 1,92,99,910 The details are enclosed at APB PAGE 86. Considering section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the assessee has written off bad debts as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee. The Ld. DR argued and stood in favour ... books as irrecoverable from specific debtors during the year under consideration. The write-off fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is also directed to be deleted. In view of the above findings, both the substantive

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave ... Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs.175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave ... Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs. 175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2971/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave ... Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs.175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2970/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave ... Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs. 175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 2943/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave ... Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs. 175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 2894/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave ... Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs. 175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 2893/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave ... Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs.175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii

Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager (F & A), Rajkot vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

assessee's claim of bad debt for interest receivable from M/s. Chinmaya Associates is inadmissible under Section 36(1)(vii). Since, the said firm continued to exist and can therefore revive as well. Thence, there is no evidence to establish that the debt has become wholly irrecoverable. Mere filing

DCIT-15.1.2, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1502/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15(1)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Ispat Infrastructure India Ltd., Office No.470 Central Facility Building, ……………… Respondent Phase – Ii, Sector 19 Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan : Aabci0639P Assessee By : Shri Hemant Vora Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hemant VoraFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: – “1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of bad debts claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) without requiring the assessee to prove the actual irrecoverability of the debt, despite the settled position that mere book entry is not sufficient ... assessments?” 3. The issue arising in Ground No.1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the disallowance of bad debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are that: The assessee is engaged in the business

ACIT, Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Western India Garments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4211/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Pico Capital Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor In Interest Of M/S Income Tax-8(3)(2), Western India Garments Private Mumbai Limited ) 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Vs. Compound, Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Western India Garments Tax - 8(2)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Compound, Vs. Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Pico Capital Pvt Ltd. & Western India Garments Pvt Ltd. Ay 2014-15 Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056675304(1), Dated 29.09.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Dcit, Circle - 8(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,52,543/- Made U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Rules Over & Above The Disallowance Of Rs. 11,02,185/- Made By The Appellant. 2. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 13.12.2016 Is Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed In The Name Of The Non-Existent Person. 3. The Ld. Ao, Has Erred In The Levying Interest Under Section 234B Of The Act. 4. The Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

Pico Capital Pvt Ltd. and Western India Garments Pvt Ltd. AY 2014-15 In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting section 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) has held in TRF Ltd v CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397/190 Taxman 391 (SC) as follows “Section 36(1 ... follows: “4. In view of the above, claim for any debt or part thereof in any previous year shall be admissible under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year

Pico Capital Private Limited (Successor in Interest of M/S Western India Garments Private Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4007/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Pico Capital Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor In Interest Of M/S Income Tax-8(3)(2), Western India Garments Private Mumbai Limited ) 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Vs. Compound, Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Western India Garments Tax - 8(2)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Compound, Vs. Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Pico Capital Pvt Ltd. & Western India Garments Pvt Ltd. Ay 2014-15 Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056675304(1), Dated 29.09.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Dcit, Circle - 8(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,52,543/- Made U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Rules Over & Above The Disallowance Of Rs. 11,02,185/- Made By The Appellant. 2. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 13.12.2016 Is Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed In The Name Of The Non-Existent Person. 3. The Ld. Ao, Has Erred In The Levying Interest Under Section 234B Of The Act. 4. The Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

Pico Capital Pvt Ltd. and Western India Garments Pvt Ltd. AY 2014-15 In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting section 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) has held in TRF Ltd v CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397/190 Taxman 391 (SC) as follows “Section 36(1 ... follows: “4. In view of the above, claim for any debt or part thereof in any previous year shall be admissible under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year

K Paramasivan & Sons, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp. Circlr-19(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1727/CHNY/2025[2012 13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1727/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri K. Paramasivan & Sons, The Deputy Commissioner 89, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Guindy, Non-Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. Pan: Aakfk 7053P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

Reload are not allowable as bad debts. The balance amount of Rs.6,25,788 is :- 6 -: allowable as bad debts written off u/s Section 36(1)(vii). As a result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal ... police complaint and by supporting journal entries. The Ld. AR submitted that the said loss is also allowable as bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, since the income had already been offered to tax in earlier years and the irrecoverability of the amount stood conclusively established