TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rejects Revenue's appeals on bad debts & interest payments, emphasizing write-off sufficiency.</h1> <h3>The Asst. CIT CC-1, Baroda Versus M/s. Navjivan Roller Four & Pulse Mills Pvt. Ltd. and vice-versa</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding the deletion of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that ... - Issues involved: The judgment involves the deletion of addition of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act and disallowance of payment made to specified persons u/s.40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act.Deletion of Addition of Bad Debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act:The Assessing Officer disallowed the bad debts claimed by the assessee, citing a previous decision. However, the CIT(A) found that the debts were in the nature of 'Kasar/vatav' and allowed the write-off as bad debts. The issue was covered by a Supreme Court decision stating that it is enough if bad debts are written off in the accounts, without needing to establish irrecoverability. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on this legal principle.Disallowance of Payment to Specified Persons u/s.40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act:The Assessing Officer disallowed interest payments made to specified persons under section 40A(2)(b) as excessive. The CIT(A) disagreed, noting that the interest rate paid to directors and family members was only marginally higher and justified by longer deposit periods. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that interest payments should be based on mutual consent and business exigency. As the Revenue did not provide evidence of excessiveness, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, aligning with the earlier decision.General Observations:The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds 3 & 4, which were deemed general in nature and required no separate adjudication. Additionally, the cross objections by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment u/s.153A of the I.T. Act were withdrawn during the hearing, leading to their dismissal.In conclusion, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn. The order was signed, dated, and pronounced in court on 20/5/2011.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
