Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 970 - HC - Income TaxEntitlement to deduction of Bad Debts written off in the books - Held that:- The claim of bad debts was rejected holding that the assessee had not complied with the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act. To this extent, the order of the tribunal is misconceived for the reason that the embargo placed in section 36(2) would not apply in the case of a non banking financial company which status, the appellant admittedly enjoys. All that remains is to examine if the debt has been written off in accordance with the mandate of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. We thus remand the matter to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purpose of examining whether the amounts have been written-off in accordance with the methodology set out by the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore (2010 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and Vijaya Bank vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT ). Substantial question of Law No.1 is decided in favour of the assessee by way of remand. Claim of deduction of long term capital loss on sale of shares - Held that:- We are of the opinion that the matter has not been considered in the proper perspective and neither of the authorities below have appreciated the materials that were produced or afforded an opportunity to the assessee to produce further details if they were of the opinion that the same were required. This issue is thus remanded back to the file of the assessing officer for consideration anew after affording appropriate opportunity to the assessee to produce materials and substantiate its claim. Substantial Question of Law No.2 is allowed by way of remand. Claim of loss that has been considered by the assessing authority in detail and rejected for want of documentary evidence. The appellant also did not produce any material either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the tribunal in this regard. In view of the concurrent finding of the authorities to the effect that the claim is wholly unsubstantiated, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the tribunal confirming the rejection of the claim. Substantial question of law No.3 stands rejected.
|