9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses incurred by Shri Nikhil Talwar were submitted, the assessee wrote off the advance given to Shri Nikhil Talwar. The advances were given in the ordinary course of business cannot be brushed aside lightly. It is true that the write off does not come within the purview of section 36(2) of the Act, but at the same time, the same has to be considered as business loss u/s 28 of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd [ 2011 (5) TMI 243 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and case of Lucky Goldstar Company Ltd [ 2018 (11) TMI 546 - ITAT KOLKATA] . The write off may not be allowable as bad debt but the same is definitely allowable as business loss. Ground No. 2 is also allowed - ITA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The assessee was asked to explain why disallowance should not be made u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. 6. In its reply, the assessee explained that all the investments in equity shares were made either from surplus funds or from interest free funds and no expenditure on account of interest was incurred in respect of these investments neither in this year nor in earlier years. 7. Submissions of the assessee were dismissed by the Assessing Officer who was of the firm belief that provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D squarely apply and accordingly, computed the disallowance at ₹ 21,89,789/-. 8. Proceeding further, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has written off an amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011-TIOL-691. It is the say of the ld. AR that as the assessee has derived dividend income of ₹ 6.46 lakhs wholly from one company and no expenditure was incurred in earning this dividend income. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd 339 ITR 632. 13. Per contra, the ld. DR read the relevant portion of the assessment order and the order of the first appellate authority and stated that the disallowance should be confirmed. 14. I have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. I have also gone through the balance sheet of the earlier years. I find force in the contention of the ld. AR. The investments are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in hand, the assessee has derived dividend income only from one company and no expenditure has been incurred. Therefore, no disallowance needs to be made. Considering the facts in totality, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of ₹ 6,46,476/-. Ground No. 1 is allowed. 18. Coming to the second grievance of the assessee, I find that the assessee has made advance to Shri Nikhil Talwar in F.Y. 2009-10. The advance was given in respect of tours and travels for business purposes. Shri Nikhil Talwar happens to be the President of the assessee company who died in June, 2013. Since no travelling bills/ bills of expenses incurred by Shri Nikhil Talwar were submitted, the assessee wrote off the advance given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
