TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pertains to deleting the addition of ₹ 24.59,873/- on account of bad debts on the plea that the requisite conditions as laid down u/s 36(2)(i) of the Act were not satisfied by the assessee and also the period to which income the corresponding debts relates to. The crux of arguments on behalf of the revenue by Shri Arun Dewan, the learned Sr. DR, is identical to the ground raised and reliance was placed upon the assessment order. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S.S. Deshpande, supported the impugned order by submitting that the assessee company supplied medicinal products to Raduja International Limited, during the year, amounting to ₹ 1,11,05,780/-. Over and above this amount, a sum of ₹ 77,2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt order it is observed that the relevant details were given by the assessee and the same were also reproduced in the assessment order. I find that no cogent reasons have been given by the Assessing Officer and she is incorrect when she states that "here it is worth mentioning that mere writing off of the bad debts in the books of account is not sufficient". The next few sentences written by the A.O. are not comprehensible. In view of the facts mentioned in the written submissions of the appellant, there is no doubt that the essential details relevant for considering the allowability of the claim of bad debts were submitted during proceedings. The legal position in regard to this issue has also been clearly enunciated by the Supreme Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e writing off as irrecoverable is enough and is substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act. Our view is finding strength from the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in TRF Limited vs. CIT (2010) 190 Taxman 391/323 ITR 397 (Hon'ble Supreme Court), CIT v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd.; 186 Taxman 62 (All), CIT v. Autometers Ltd.; 292 ITR 345 (Del), CIT v. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd.; 162 Taxman 124 (Del), Sure Gaggal v. ITO; 180 Taxman 90 (HP); Lawlys Enterprises Private Limited v. CIT; 314 ITR 297 (Pat), DIT vs. Oman International Bank Saog; 184 Taxman 314 (Bom), CIT v. Smt. Nilopher I. Singh; 309 ITR 233 (Del), the ratio laid down in Kashmir Trading Company; 291 ITR 228 (Raj). 4. However, the Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20,19,600/- made on account of expenditure debited under quality rejections when the assessee had credited the provision account in this regard which was not in accordance with the mercantile system of accounting. During hearing the learned Sr. DR defended the assessment order whereas the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by further submitting that the assessee supplied certain consumable goods to Ukrine and out of them part of the goods were rejected as the same were not found satisfactory for human consumption. The learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to page 90 of the paper book. It was argued that the director of the assessee company went to Ukrine a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rejected material was not brought back to India and the correspondence between the assessee and the importer were duly filed before the ld. first appellate authority. The conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (page 5) is reproduced hereunder :- " I have considered the facts of the case. I am in agreement with the appellant's contention that the disallowance was made on the basis of reasons which are not relevant to the determination of the issue. Whether the debit is made to provision account or to the account of M/s Raduga will have no bearing on the allowability of the issue. It was submitted that the assessee had debited Expenditure account and credited provision for expenses account. Subsequently, after....