Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1045 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTDisallowance on account of setting of STCG against depreciation - carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation - HELD THAT:- Tribunal held that as Respectfully following the judgment passed in MAHALAXMI SUGAR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [1986 (7) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] which decided the issue of the present case relating to setting off STCG against brought forward unabsorbed depreciation in favour of the assessee, we find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal preferred by the Department. Addition u/s 68 - Tribunal upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting the addition - HELD THAT:- The finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) is that loan was accepted through banking channel and the details furnished by the authorized signatory of the Director were not verified vis-a-vis the records available with the AO in its proper perspective. This finding of the CIT(A) also came to be affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Disallowance on account of bad debts written off - Tribunal upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting the addition - HELD THAT:- After Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of TRF Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] it is not mandatory on the part of appellant to establish that debt has become bad or appellant’s bonafide about the irrecoverability of debt. The only conditions required for claim of bad debt are (as per provisions) . The debt must be trade debt and the same should have been taken in computing income of appellant of any year i.e current year and earlier years. The debt should be written off from the books of accounts of appellant. Relying upon the judgment of TRF Ltd. (supra) as being settled principle of law, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the same if hereby upheld Addition on account of cash deposit - Tribunal upholding the decision of CIT(A) deleting the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) found the addition is based on surmises & conjectures in the absence of verification made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Relying upon the judgment of the Saurin Nandkumar Shodhan [2013 (6) TMI 522 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] holding that presumption on surmises by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot be justified for such audited cash book and bank book the Ld.CIT(A) deleted such addition. Taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Saurin Nandkumar Shodhan, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed
|