TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of CIT vs. Standard Polygraph Machines Pvt. Ltd. [1998 (11) TMI 49 - MADRAS High Court]. As this is a recurring feature in the assessee's case there is no merit in the Revenue's argument that the assessee had not supplied it with the copy of the relevant agreements. Against revenue. Claim for bad debt - Held that:- No merit in the Revenue's case that the assessee, being a NBFC, is not in the business of money lending, so that the provision of section 36(2) is not satisfied. See T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay) P. Ltd. [2008 (2) TMI 399 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] among others, so that the matter ought to be considered as settled. Against revenue. - ITA No. 8656/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our attention to order by the tribunal in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2005-06 (supra), and which in turn follows an order by it for A.Y. 2002-03 (in ITA No. 500/Mum/06 dated 29.10.2007/PB pgs. 11-13). The same, he would further submit, also forms the basis of the deletion by the ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal. 2.2 The ld. DR could not rebut the said contentions by the ld. AR, during the course of the hearing. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Gd. # 1 of the Revenue's appeal is general in nature, warranting no adjudication. 3.2 The assessee is a domestic company engaged in the credit-card business as well as its financing, registered as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36(1)(vii), so that a claim for bad debt, for being eligible for deduction, need not be supported by a demonstrative proof of the debt becoming bad, and that it would be sufficient if the amount of debt is written off in the accounts as irrecoverable. Again, there is no merit in the Revenue's case that the assessee, being a NBFC, is not in the business of money lending, so that the provision of section 36(2) is not satisfied. The tribunal has drawn support from the decisions by the higher courts of law, as in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) and CIT vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay) P. Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 126 (Bom), among others, so that the matter ought to be considered as settled. 4. In the result, the Revenue's appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
