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>ITAT decision on bad debts, leave encashment, and remission of loan, following TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT ruling.</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Versus Laser Dot Ltd.,</h3> Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Versus Laser Dot Ltd., - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of bad debts claimed by the assessee.2. Disallowance of deduction for provision made towards leave encashment.3. Disallowance of deduction for amount paid towards LIC Group Gratuity Scheme.4. Dispute regarding remission of a loan and its treatment under sec. 41(1) of the Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of bad debts claimed by the assesseeThe Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the bad debts claim of the assessee. The AO had disallowed the claim as the debts were not described as bad in the ledger extracts. However, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim, stating that there was no evidence to prove the debts were not bad. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT, which stated that writing off bad debts in the accounts is sufficient for deduction, regardless of actual recovery. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.Issue 2: Disallowance of deduction for provision made towards leave encashmentThe AO disallowed the deduction for provision made towards leave encashment as it was not paid before the due date for filing the return of income. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, but the ITAT referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., stating that leave encashment provision is an ascertained liability. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the AO to verify payment before deciding further.Issue 3: Disallowance of deduction for amount paid towards LIC Group Gratuity SchemeThe AO disallowed the deduction for the amount paid towards LIC Group Gratuity Scheme as the scheme was not approved by the CIT. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance due to lack of evidence. However, the ITAT referred to a previous decision in the assessee's own case, allowing a similar deduction. Following the precedent, the ITAT allowed the deduction for the amount paid towards the LIC Group Gratuity Scheme.Issue 4: Dispute regarding remission of a loanThe CIT(A) wrongly referenced a previous order in relation to the remission of a loan, which led to confusion. The ITAT found no such issue in the mentioned order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding bad debts and allowed the assessee's appeals for leave encashment provision and LIC Group Gratuity Scheme deduction. The matter of remission of a loan was remanded for reconsideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
