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

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (11) TMI 880 - AT - Income Tax


Issues:
Disallowance of business expenses
Disallowance of sundry balances written off
Disallowance of deposits written off

Disallowance of Business Expenses:
The appeal concerns the disallowance of business expenses totaling ?34,970 by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer added ?34,750 as the assessee failed to explain the write-off in the books of account. Additionally, ?6,51,852 was disallowed as it was considered an advance deposit and not a bad debt. The CIT(A) upheld these additions. The assessee argued that certain amounts had already been offered as income, resulting in double taxation. The Tribunal decided to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as the details were not provided before the Assessing Officer, especially considering the claim of double taxation. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of ?4,499 paid to a courier company as these expenses were incurred in the course of business.

Disallowance of Sundry Balances Written Off:
The assessee contended that sundry balances written off were credit balances already offered as income, leading to potential double taxation. Regarding ?4,499 written off as payment to a courier company, the Tribunal found no valid reason for disallowance as these were legitimate business expenses. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim after the assessee provides all details, especially in light of the potential double taxation issue.

Disallowance of Deposits Written Off:
The Tribunal considered the deposits written off amounting to ?6,51,852 given to lessors towards rental deposit. Citing a similar case before the Delhi Bench, the Tribunal allowed the claim as a business loss. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the loss of security deposit should be treated as a business loss, not a bad debt, as it was incurred in the normal course of business operations. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ?6,51,852 written off by the assessee.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of disallowance of business expenses, sundry balances written off, and deposits written off, providing detailed insights into the arguments presented, decisions made by the authorities, and the final rulings by the Tribunal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates