9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten off - HELD THAT:- Issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. [ 2010 (2) TMI 211 - Supreme Court] as rightly held by the Ld. CIT (A). Even the CBDT has accepted this position and issued a circular no 12/2016 on 30.05.2016 directing that if any appeal is already filed by the revenue on this issue before any Court or Tribunal, the same may be withdrawn. We accordingly treat the appeal filed by the revenue on this issue as withdrawn and dismiss the same. - I.T.A. No. 335/Kol/2015, I.T.A. No. 383/Kol/2015 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM For the Appellant : Santosh Kr. Bajaj, FCA For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO, any debt written off as per the mutual understanding between the assessee and the concerned debtors would not qualify for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) and accordingly the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of bad debts written off amounting to ₹ 1,75,00,000/- was disallowed by him. 3. In the computation of total income filed along with the return, a disallowance of ₹ 2,39,165/- was offered by the assessee u/s 14A on account of expenses incurred in relation to the management of investment, the income of which was exempt from tax. Since the said disallowance was not computed as per Rule 8D, the AO invoked the said rule and made a disallowance u/s 14A at ₹ 7,66,226/-. Accordingly the total income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d are arbitrary, unreasonable, erroneous and perverse. 2. For that the order appealed against is otherwise erroneous on facts and/or in law. Grounds raised in the revenue s appeal 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in direction the AO to recomputed allowing write off bad debt by considering the amended section 36(1)(vii) and judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to an existing Circular laid down by the CBDT. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
