TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 828
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts in disallowing a sum of Rs. 4,15,020.00 (Rs. Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand Twenty Only) U / s. 2(24) (x) read with Section 36(va) of the Act. 2) For that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts in disallowing a sum of Rs. 15,95,544.00 (Rs. Fifteen Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four Only) for Bad Debts U/s.36(1)(vii) in view of the facts & circumstances of the case no such disallowance was at all called for, without prejudice and in any case the disallowance is not as per law. 3) For that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as in facts in disallowing a sum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer, since the assessee had deposited the said amounts after due date, though before the due date of filing the return of income. 5. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee for the month of September, 2007 amounting to Rs. 2,08,339/- as the payment was made within grace period of five days. However, the balance payment on account of employees' PF and ESCI payments being made beyond the grace period of five days, were disallowed by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 4,15,020/-. 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the amounts were paid much before the due date of filing the return of income and as per the details available in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee is thus, allowed. 10. The issue in ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is against the disallowance of Rs. 15,95,544/-, which was claimed as bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 11. The perusal of the assessment order reflects that the Assessing Officer had noted that the assessee had debited sum of Rs. 15,95,544/- to the Profit & Loss Account, out of which Rs. 12,32,212/- was in respect of sundry balances written off and Rs. 3,63,383/- was in respect of bad debts. The details of the amounts written off were submitted by the assessee and the same are reproduced under para 8 at page 13 of the assessment order. The above said amounts were outstanding from 2000-01 i.e. Rs. 12,30,042, from 2001-02 Rs. 2,49,578/- and f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter the amendment, the Assessing Officer could not question the year in which debt had become bad, once the assessee had exercised its option, but only bad debts could be written off in the books of account. 13. The assessee is in appeal against the aforesaid observations of CIT(A). 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) had laid down the proposition that it was not necessary for the tax payer to establish that the debt infact had become irrecoverable, it was enough if the bad debt was written off as irrecoverable in the books of account. 15. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 12,30,042/- and further outstanding since 2001-02 and 2002-03 amounting to Rs. 2,49,578/- and Rs. 1,15,923/- respectively. The claim of the assessee before the authorities below was that amounts could not be recovered from the respective parties, despite several efforts. Where the assessee has not been able to recover the amounts for such long period, the said debt has become bad in the hands of assessee and the same was written off in the books of account. Such writing off of bad debt is duly allowable as deduction in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 15,95,544/-. The ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed. 17. The issue in ground of appeal No.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be concluded that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business irrespective of the contention of the assessee that such expenditure was subjected to FBT. Accordingly, 10% of the said expenditure was disallowed in the hands of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,12,400/-. 20. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) and pointed out that there is no merit in the aforesaid disallowance in the hands of assessee company. 21. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has placed reliance on the orders of authorizes below. 22. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee before us is a limited company and had booked expenditure of Rs. 11,24,461/- on account of vehicle expenses,....