Income Tax Tribunal's decision upheld: Eicher Motors' successor allowed bad debt deduction under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2).

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1. Versus VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1. Versus VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:
The appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The main issue is the permissibility of deduction for bad debts acquired by the respondent/assessee from its predecessor-in-interest, Eicher Motors Ltd., on acquisition of its commercial vehicle division in a scheme of demerger, under Sections 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Judgment:

Issue 1: Permissibility of Deduction for Bad Debts

The appellant/revenue sought to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deduction of bad debts acquired by the respondent/assessee from its predecessor-in-interest. The appellant argued that the deduction was not permissible under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The senior standing counsel for the appellant acknowledged that the debts in question had become bad and that the predecessor-in-interest had previously offered them for tax imposition.

Issue 2: Consideration of Successor-in-Interest's Ability to Write Off Debts

The key issue before the statutory authorities was whether the successor-in-interest, the respondent/assessee, had the right to write off debts that had already turned bad. The Commissioner of Income Tax ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee, a decision that was upheld by the Tribunal. The court referenced previous judgments, including one by the Supreme Court and another by a coordinate bench of the court, to support the view that no interference was necessary with the impugned order. Consequently, the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 5,96,20,438/- was correctly deleted.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was closed, and the parties were directed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the judgment.