Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2007 (2) TMI 349 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal Affirms Bad Debt Write-Off as Evidence, Remands Depreciation Issue for Adjudication. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues for statistical purposes. It remanded the depreciation issue back to the AO for fresh ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          Tribunal Affirms Bad Debt Write-Off as Evidence, Remands Depreciation Issue for Adjudication.

                          The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues for statistical purposes. It remanded the depreciation issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claims for bad debts, affirming that the write-off in the books is prima facie evidence of the debt becoming bad, thus rejecting the CIT(A)'s findings.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Disallowance of depreciation on assets purchased by the assessee.
                          2. Disallowance of bad debts claimed in respect of lease rentals receivable from M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd.
                          3. Disallowance of bad debts claimed in respect of bills discounted recoverable from M/s. Dharnendra Industries Ltd.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Purchased by the Assessee:
                          The first issue concerns the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 4,17,107 on assets purchased by the assessee. The assessee, a finance company, had filed its return declaring a loss. The depreciation claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the findings from the previous assessment year (1997-98), where it was concluded that the assets did not exist. The matter was escalated to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1997-98, remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to ascertain the interest element in the lease rental receipts and adjust the principal amount from the taxable income. This ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

                          2. Disallowance of Bad Debts Claimed in Respect of Lease Rentals Receivable from M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd.:
                          The second issue involved the disallowance of Rs. 12,45,147 claimed as bad debts for lease rentals receivable from M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd. The AO disallowed the claim, noting that the assessee had a security deposit of Rs. 16,48,000 from the lessee, which could have been adjusted against the lease rental. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the recovery had not become genuinely bad, as the security deposit exceeded the outstanding lease rental. The Tribunal, however, found that the security deposit was against the leased asset and not specifically for the lease rental. The Tribunal also noted that the cheques issued by M/s. Sarigram Steels Ltd. were dishonored, and the matter was pending in the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s finding and allowed the assessee's claim for bad debts.

                          3. Disallowance of Bad Debts Claimed in Respect of Bills Discounted Recoverable from M/s. Dharnendra Industries Ltd.:
                          The third issue pertained to the disallowance of Rs. 18,68,890 claimed as bad debts in respect of bills discounted recoverable from M/s. Dharnendra Industries Ltd. The AO disallowed the claim, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, noting that there were steady recoveries in the subsequent years and that the debt had not genuinely become bad. The CIT(A) emphasized that for a debt to be considered bad, it must be genuinely irrecoverable, and mere delays in recovery do not suffice. The Tribunal, however, sided with the assessee, referencing the Special Bench decision in the case of Oman International Bank SAOG, which held that it is not obligatory for the assessee to prove that the debt has become bad for the purpose of allowance under section 36(1)(vii). The Tribunal concluded that the write-off by the assessee was a prima facie evidence of the debt becoming bad, and the revenue could not demand further demonstrative proof. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for bad debts.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on all grounds for statistical purposes, remanding the depreciation issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication and accepting the assessee's claims for bad debts based on the principle that the write-off in the books of accounts serves as prima facie evidence of the debt becoming bad.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found