9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Bangalore dated 18.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under. I. Disallowance of write off of rental deposit amounting to ₹ 1,000,000 The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['Hon'ble CIT(A)'] erred in upholding the disallowance of writeoff of rental deposit made. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the loss incurred by the Appellant on account of write-off is in relation to business and allowable as a businessloss under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D of the Act amounting to ₹ 56,083 The Learned AO and the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. The interest is consequential in nature. The Appellant craves to leave to add, to alter, to amend, to rescind or to modify the grounds herein above or produce further documents, facts and evidence before or at the time of hearing this appeal. For the above and any other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing, it is prayed that necessary relief may be provided. 3. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that only one issue is involved in the present case and this is regarding the assessee s claim for write off of rental deposit which was made by the assessee and was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rite off of bad debts, mere write off is sufficient and the assessee is not required to establish that the debt in question has become bad and irrecoverable in the year in which it is claimed as deduction. In the present case, the claim of the assessee is not regarding write off of bad debts u/s. 36(1) (vii) and the claim of the assessee is regarding business loss in respect of write off of a deposit and therefore, in the present case, the assessee has to establish that the deposit in question has become irrecoverable. As per email dated 25.05.2009 reproduced by CIT (A) on para no. 6.1 of his order, it cannot be said that the deposit in question is not recoverable. 5. Before us also, in the paper book, the assessee has submitted the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jection of CIT was this in that case that the deposits represented capital amounts and if they were not returned to the assessee, the loss was capital loss not allowable in computing the income. In view of these facts, this tribunal order is also not applicable in the present case. 6. Similarly in the case of M/s. LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCITin IT(TP)A No. 1121/Bang/2011 dated 22.03.2013, copy available on pages 19 to 50 of paper book, facts noted in para no. 6 of this tribunal order are these that the assessee had placed a refundable deposit of ₹ 24,93,600/- with the landlord and since the assessee had difficulty in recovering the deposit from the landlord, it had filed a suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the issue in dispute was regarding loss on account of theft of watches and it was the dispute as to whether the act of the assessee of carrying watches to his home at late hours for the purpose of safe keeping was for the business purpose or not and therefore, loss in those circumstances is allowable as business loss or not. Hence this judgment is also not applicable in the present case because the facts are different. 9. The next judgment is judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT as reported in 111 ITR 263. In this case, the dispute was regarding claim of the assessee in respect of cash brought by the assessee to business place of the assessee for buying securities and the dispute wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable. In the present case, the issue in dispute is different and therefore, this judgment is also not applicable. 12. The next judgment is judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Walchand and Co. (P.) Ltd. as reported in 65 ITR 381. In this case, the issue in dispute was regarding allowability of increased remuneration of executive officers. It was disallowed by the AO on this basis that increase in remuneration or salary of officers was not reflected in increase in profits of assessee and therefore, it was not an expenditure which can be justified as laid out wholly and necessarily for purposes of business. The facts of the present case are different and therefore, this judgment is also not applicable. 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
