TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment years (A.Ys) involved are AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. The Appellant/revenue and the Respondent/assessee have filed cross-appeals before the ITAT, which were disposed of by the impugned order dated 17 June 2021. The ITAT by the aforesaid impugned order allowed the Respondent/assessee's appeal on the grounds of appeal raised by the Respondent/assessee and dismissed the Appellant/revenue's appeal on the grounds of appeals raised by the Appellant/revenue therein. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant/revenue has preferred the present appeals. In Income-tax Appeal No. 1050 of 2024 the following questions of law have been raised: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee in subsidiaries companies were capital in nature and not for business purpose." 4. In Income-tax Appeal No. 940 of 2024, the following questions of law are raised: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing to write off the investment made of Rs. 282,01,00,000/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to furnish any evidence to show that the investments in the wholly subsidiaries was for the purpose of business and the investments made by the assessee in subsidiaries companies were capital in nature and not for business purposes. The decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of APS Star Industries Ltd. (86 ITD 182....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aforesaid write-off on the ground that the Respondent/assessee had failed to substantiate its claim by sufficient documentary evidence. The CIT(A) as well as the ITAT reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer, holding that the Respondent/assessee had furnished the requisite details and that the inventories in respect of which the write-off was claimed were old inventories. The ITAT also placed reliance on the report submitted by the Respondent/assessee given by the reputed firm of Chartered Accountants (C.A.) M/s Grant Thornton, prepared during the year 2011 to evaluate the status of debtors and inventories, particularly with regard to the verification and assessment of saleable inventories. The ITAT further held that, during the cours....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng debtors under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the ITAT, in the impugned order has held that the Respondent-assessee furnished additional evidence in support of its claim for bad debts. These evidences included details of sundry debtors written-off, copies of sale invoices pertaining to these debtors and ledger accounts indicating sales made to those debtors in earlier years. The ITAT has also held that the Respondent-assessee furnished an ageing report as given by C.A. firm M/s Grant Thornton recommending the creation of a provision for doubtful debts. The ITAT further held that M/s Grant Thornton, in its report dated 22 November 2011, recommended the write-off of debts after conduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bts of Rs. 84,37,45,000/-. Considering these findings of the ITAT, which are based on documentary evidence, and legal position insofar as write-off of bad debts is concerned, we are not inclined to entertain question of law no. (ii) as raised by the Appellant/revenue in Income Tax Appeal No. 1050 of 2024. We are in fact of the view that this question of law is more in the nature of question of fact, which has been raised by the Appellant-revenue and in view thereof, the same requires to be dismissed/rejected. 11. Question of law no. (iii) in Income-tax Appeal No. 1050 of 2024 is similar to question of law no. (i) raised in Income-tax Appeal No. 940 of 2024. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the reasoning....