Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 476 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance in respect of loss on advances written off - Held that:- There can be hardly any dispute about the legal positions in view of hon’ble apex court decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT ] that after amendment in section 31(vii) of the Act post facto 01-04-1998 that it is not necessary for an assessee to establish the debts to have actually become bad. We find that the assessee has filed all necessary details even before the CIT(A) qua the bad debts in question. There is no evidence much less cogent one with both the lower authorities specifically rebutting assessee’s contentions to have paid the impugned advances in course of its business of civil construction as made to the three parties given above. A shed in Minda (Huf) Limited.[2006 (3) TMI 213 - ITAT DELHI-A ] when advances given in the course of business become irrecoverable and an assessee write off the same as irrecoverable thereby claiming a deduction, the same amounts to trading loss as allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. The Revenue is unable to either point out any distinction on facts or law thereto. We accept assessee’s arguments against the impugned disallowance and hold that its claim of bad debts in question of ₹ 20, 40,451/- is allowable as loss u/s. 28/37 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of land development expenses - Held that:- As during the course of hearing that neither the Revenue has been able to support the impugned disallowance @ 20% hereinabove after pointing out specific material rebutting contents of the relevant evidence on record nor the assessee leads us to any cogent evidence for having incurred whole of the expenditure for developing its akota land stated hereinabove. We observe in these facts that both the parties have failed to discharge their respective onuses in support of and against the land development claim. We feel appropriate in the larger interest of justice in these facts and circumstances that a lump sum disallowance of ₹ 2,50,000/- instead of ₹ 24,95,422/- in question would be just and proper - Decided partly in favour of assessee
|