HARMUNY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 161/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013
Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harmuny Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata 32A/28, Suren Sarkar Road Vs Kolkata - 700010 [Pan : Aacch5841H] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 31/01/2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Order U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 31.01.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Is Arbitrary, Unjustified & Bad In Law. 2.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By Ao Amounting To Rs. 6,85,53,691/- Towards Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts Under Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Fact That The Same Was Actually Written Off From The Accounts Of The Appellant In Previous Year. 3.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,12,27,393/- U/S 41(1) Read With Section 28(Iv) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Presumption That Liability
For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwary, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 28Section 32Section 41(1)
depreciation under section 32 of the Act of the said sum.
8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehmently argued supporting the order of the lower authorities and further submitted that the expenses claimed under the provisions of bad and doubtful debts are not allowable under the Act. The sum payable to the concern SAMPL, deserves to be added
