9911796707
TMI BlogDeduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im of ₹10 crores as a bad debt, written off due to non-repayment by a developer, was justified under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the IT Act . The ₹10 crores was initially advanced as a deposit towards acquiring commercial premises in an upcoming project by the developer. When the project failed to progress, the assessee sought the return of the funds, which were not repaid, leading to the write-off. Additionally, the court examined the alternative claim under Section 37 of the IT Act , addressing whether the amount could be considered a business expenditure. Arguments Presented Revenue's Contentions Inadequate Substantiation : The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide adequate material or docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the accounts. Alternative Claim : The assessee argued that even if the claim under Section 36(1)(vii) was unsuccessful, the expenditure could be considered under Section 37 as it was laid out for business purposes. Court's Analysis Section 36 of the IT Act The court examined the provisions of Section 36 , noting that deductions for bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) are subject to the conditions in Section 36(2) . The court referenced key judgments, including Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd . , to outline the prerequisites for claiming such deductions. The court emphasized that mere write-off without appropriate accounting treatment and compliance with statutory requirements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as allowed, reinforcing the need for clear substantiation and compliance with the IT Act provisions for claiming such deductions. Comprehensive Summary The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the conditions under which bad debts can be written off for tax purposes. The court emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with adequate documentation and highlighted the statutory requirements under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the IT Act . The court found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim and noted inconsistencies in their arguments. Furthermore, the court ruled that the expenditure in question was capital in nature and could not be claimed as a business expense under Section 37 . Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
