9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1209 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of write off of rental deposit - Held that - None of the judgments is helping the assessee and the assessee is not able to establish that the deposit in question has become recoverable in the present year and therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of write off of rental deposit 2. Interest under section 234D of the Act Issue 1: Disallowance of write off of rental deposit The appeal concerns the disallowance of a write-off of a rental deposit by the assessee, challenged against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee claimed the write-off as a business loss under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating the deposit was not irrecoverable. The tribunal found that the emails submitted did not prove the irrecoverability of the deposit. Various judgments were cited, but none supported the assessee's case. The tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to establish the irrecoverability of the deposit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Issue 2: Interest under section 234D of the Act The appellant contested the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act by the Learned AO and the CIT(A), arguing it was consequential in nature. However, the tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail in the judgment provided. The tribunal focused primarily on the disallowance of the write-off of the rental deposit and the failure of the appellant to prove its irrecoverability. As a result, the tribunal dismissed the appeal without specific discussion on the interest under section 234D of the Act. In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the disallowance of the write-off of the rental deposit due to the appellant's inability to prove its irrecoverability. The judgment extensively analyzed the evidence presented by the appellant, including email correspondences, and compared it with relevant legal precedents. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeal.
|
