Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (3) TMI 904

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as correctly claimed, as bad debts in the present instance. See Badridas Daga Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1958 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ] - ITA 170/2017 & CM No.7386/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. NAJMI WAZIRI JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai for Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Ms. Shivani Khandekar, Advocates. O R D E R 1. The question of law urged in this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is:- Whether the investment write off to the tune of ₹ 2,56,35,395/-, could be characterised on the Revenue side or did it fall in the Capital side as loss? 2. The assessee, a statutory Corporat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dled with different conditions. The claim of the assessee is also tested for its allowance as trading loss. According to the provision of Section 28 of the lncome Tax Act profits and gains of the business or profession, which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year, is chargeable to tax under the head Profit and Gains of the Business or Profession. Such profit and gains can only be arrived after accounting for the loss coo. The loss of the equity shares which is in the form of financial assistance given to the different borrowers in the form of financial assistance, as equity participation is loss arising from the business of the assessee. Therefore, if such loss is suffered during the year than same is allowabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wance of ₹ 256353951- on account of investment written off. 4. As is evident, the ITAT relied upon the judgment of Badridas Daga Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1958] 34 ITR 10, where the Supreme Court stressed that: ........when a claim is made for a deduction for which there is no specific provision in Section 10(2), whether it is admissible or not, will depend on whether, having regard to accepted practice and trading principles, it can be said to arise out of the carrying on of the business and to be incidental to it. If that is established, then the deduction must be allowed, provided of course there is no prohibition against it, express or implied, in the Act............... .......At the same time, it should be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates