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>High Court upholds ITAT decision on bad debts & compensation vs. penalties, dismisses Income Tax Appeal.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/s Knohar Electricals Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/s Knohar Electricals Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Whether the ITAT erred in allowing bad debts when recovery proceedings were pending before an arbitrator.2. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting an addition ignoring the running account with the assessee and provisions of Section 40A(3).Analysis:Issue 1:The Income Tax Department appealed against the ITAT's decision to allow bad debts amounting to Rs. 44,51,796, despite pending recovery proceedings before an arbitrator. The AO disallowed this amount as bad debt, but the CIT (A) disagreed, stating that the deductions by Delhi Vidyut Board were penalties for late delivery, not bad debts. The Tribunal cited precedents to support the view that such deductions were not penalties but damages/compensation, agreeing with the CIT (A). The Tribunal noted that the demand for payment was pending before an arbitrator, and thus, the matter did not warrant High Court interference. The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal.Issue 2:The second issue involved the ITAT's deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,14,748, despite the payments being made to parties with a running account with the assessee, potentially violating Section 40A(3). The Tribunal's decision was based on the nature of deductions made by Delhi Vidyut Board, considering them as damages/compensation for delayed delivery of repaired transformers. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the deductions were not penalties but legitimate compensation. The Court noted that the matter was subjudice before an arbitrator and that any tax liability would arise only upon actual receipt of the amount by the assessee.
TaxTMI 