Please click on the categories to the right to find what you are looking for. Click on this icon to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from Foxit 1.8 MB or from Adobe 20MB.

(44.2 KiB, 2,599 DLs)

Download: trf_bad_debts.pdf

Bad debts need not be proven to be irrecoverable u/s 36(1)(vii). It is sufficient if they are written off

 

The Supreme Court had to consider whether after the amendment to s. 36 (1) (vii) w.e.f. 1.4.1989, an assessee had to establish, as a matter of fact, that the debt advanced by the assessee had, in fact, become irrecoverable or whether writing off the debt as irrecoverable in the accounts was sufficient. HELD deciding in favour of the assessee:

 

(i) The position in law is well-settled. After 1.4.1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. When a bad debt occurs, the bad debt account is debited and the customer’s account is credited, thus, closing the account of the customer. In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from Sundry Debtors.

 

(ii) As the AO has not examined whether the debt has, in fact, been written off in accounts of the assessee. the matter is remitted to the AO for de novo consideration of the above-mentioned aspect only and that too only to the extent of the write off.

 

Note: The judgements in Oman International Bank 313 ITR 128 (Bom), Morgan Securities 292 ITR 339 (Del) are impliedly approved. See Also: Kohli Brothers Color Lab (All).

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Kohli Brothers Color Lab (Allahabad High Court) 

    The effect of the amendment to s. 36 (1) (vii) is that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt had become bad in the previous year and mere writing of the debt as irrecoverable is sufficient. However, the said entry of write off of…

  2. CIT vs. Bonanza Portfolio (Delhi High Court) 

    Since the brokerage payable by the client to the broker was a part of the debt and that debt had been taken into account in computing the income, the conditions of s. 36 (2) (i) read with s. 36 (1) (viii) were satisfied and the bad debt was allowable…

  3. CIT vs. DB (India) Securities (Delhi High Court) 

    Share broker is eligible to claim “bad debts” u/s 36 (1) (vii) / 36 (2)   The assessee, a broker, purchased shares of the value of Rs.1,06,10,247 on behalf of its sub-broker. The sub-broker made payment of Rs.64 lakhs. As the remaining amount of Rs.41,37,881 was not paid, the…

Comments are closed.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter