9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, Mumbai dated 31.08.2012 pertaining to Assessment year 2009-10. 2. The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 93,62,085/- being deposits written off. 3. The assessee is in the business of running organized retailing of household consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and explained that the deposits were given during the course of business and for the purpose of business therefore the same are allowable as write off as a business loss. After considering the facts and the submissions and drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Chenab Foresh Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute that the deposits were given during the course of the business of the assessee. It is also an undisputed fact that the same became irrecoverable and were therefore written off. The assessee claimed the amount as a business loss which was disallowed by the AO and the said disallowance was deleted by the First Appellate Authority. 8.1. It would be relevant to consider the observations made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstance, it is a revenue loss. In the first, it bears the character of an investment, but in the second, to use a commonly understood phrase, it bears the character of current expenses." 8.2. This observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of I.B. M World Trade Corpn. (supra). The relevant observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Bomb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
