2022 (11) TMI 1589

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 37, New Delhi ['CIT(A)'] confirming the action of Learned assessing officer in making an addition of INR 6,61,34,424/-, is a vitiated order and thus, bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in complete ignorance of the facts of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the claim of advances written off in the books of accounts is against the matching principle of accounting without appreciating the provisions of section 37(1) read with section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 6,61,34,424/- by disallowing the claim of the assessee of bad debt/ business loss. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective. He submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the amount in question was given as advance to meet various expenses relating to common facilities such as office rent, electricity expenses, security expenses, office maintenance, salary and general repair and maintenance. He submitted that Matrix Cellular International Service Limited, appellant herein, is an Indian Company, duly registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Matrix Cell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....424/- as business loss against provision created in books of account. Since the amount advanced was in the nature of revenue and was given for business purpose, the actual write off the same has been claimed as an allowable expenses u/s 37 of the Act. He contended that even before learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee had claimed it as a business loss. However, the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to advert to this contention of the assessee that even if it is not allowable u/s 37 it would be allowable as business loss u/s 28 of the Act. He submitted that the findings of the authorities below are contrary to settled principles of law. Per contra, learned Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have he....