9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of Bad Debt u/s 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Valuation of Closing Stock u/s 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue 1: Deduction of Bad Debt u/s 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The assessee claimed a bad debt deduction of Rs. 65,00,000, which was an Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) given to VHEL Industries Ltd. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the claim on two grounds: (1) the debt had not become irrecoverable as a suit was filed for recovery, and (2) the assessee was not in the money lending business, thus not covered u/s 36(2). The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in TRF Ltd. Vs CIT, which clarified that post-amendment to Section 36(1)(vii), it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts. Since the assessee had written off the amount, the first objection of the A.O. was invalid. Regarding the second objection, the Tribunal cited various decisions, including ITW Sugar India Ltd. Vs DCIT and Poysha Oxygen (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT, which held that ICDs are treated as debts and qualify for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii). The Tribunal noted that the interest income from the ICD was assessed as business income in earlier years, satisfying Section 36(2)(i). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 65,00,000 as bad debt. Issue 2: Valuation of Closing Stock u/s 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The A.O. added Rs. 2,24,328 to the closing stock value for excise duty on raw materials and packing materials, which the CIT(A) confirmed but directed verification of payment u/s 43B. The Tribunal noted that two accounting methods exist for excise duty on purchases: gross method (where excise duty is included in purchase cost) and net method (where excise duty is debited to a recoverable account). If the gross method is followed, the addition is justified. However, if the net method is followed, no actual addition is required as the excise duty component would be adjusted. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to verify the accounting method used by the assessee and make necessary adjustments accordingly, providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee for the bad debt deduction and remanded for verification regarding the valuation of closing stock. The Tribunal's directions were to ensure compliance with the legal provisions and proper accounting practices.
|
