TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1 The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Bengaluru is liable to set aside in so far as the upholding of the additions and disallowances made by the Respondent Officer are incorrect, improper, unlawful and opposed to facts of the case and law. 5,41,985/- 2 The Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in upholding the disallowance made by the AO regarding claim of Bad Debts Written Off to the extent of Rs. 6,89,958/-, the same being the claims of the Appellant disputed by the Director of Information and Publicity, Government of Karnataka even though the same is allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act for the A.Y.2013-14. 2,23,857/- 3 The Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s deduction of business expenditure u/s 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act in so far as the said Income Tax Deducted at Sources made out of the Trade Bills of the Appellant were treated and assessed as income in the past years u/s 198 of the Act, once he decided to disallow the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act for the A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Learned Appellate Commissioner ought to have, alternatively, allowed the deduction of Rs. 6,89,958/- as Business Expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, since the same is incurred and paid by the Appellant exclusively for the purposes and in the course of its business, once he decided to disallow the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act for the A.Y.2013-14." 3. The assessee submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit in respect of TDS cannot be reason to write off u/s. 36(1)(vii) or it can be considered as business loss since there is no evidence to show that it was duly deducted the tax and relevant income offered by the assessee for taxation. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the assessee's claim is that TDS was not refunded by the department and the same has to be allowed as bad debt. To claim TDS credit, the assessee shall furnish the details of TDS by the deductor and the relevant certificate of TDS issued by the deductor. First of all, the assessee has not furnished the TDS certificate to the corresponding amount of Rs. 9,80,516. Without furnishing these details, the assessee is claiming be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2(a) raised by the assessee in ITA No. 927/Kol/2013 for Asst Year 2009-10 is allowed." 9. However, in the present case, the assessee has not furnished the details of TDS from deductor by furnishing valid TDS certificates. It is incumbent upon the assessee to show that the amount has actually been deducted by the deductor towards TDS due from the assessee. Once the assessee establishes that it has been actually deducted from the deductor, the corresponding write off by the assessee on non-recovery of TDS credit is to be allowed. With these observations, we remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the main ground and additional ground raised by the assessee on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be allowed as bad debt in terms of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The alternative contention of the assessee is that if it is not allowed as bad debt, the same has to be allowed as business loss as the assessee has already made payment on this count to the Government authority. According to the ld. DR, this contention is also not having any merit. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The contention of the ld. AR is that the claim of bad debt was allowable to the assessee if the same has been written off as irrecoverable by the assessee and it was not necessary to establish that the debt has actually become bad. The ld. AR submitted though service tax was routed through balance sheet, the rel....