Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Manori Properties Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Manori Properties Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 23, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (manori_bad_debt_biz_loss.pdf)


If Not ‘Bad Debt’, ‘Business Loss’ claim sans specific ground invalid

The assessee claimed advances of Rs. 10.85 lakhs as a “bad debt” u/s 36(1)(vii). The AO & CIT (A) rejected the claim on the ground that as the debt had not been accounted as income, the conditions of s. 36(2) were not satisfied and the claim was not allowable. The alternate claim as a “business loss” was also rejected by the CIT (A). Before the Tribunal, the assessee raised a ground only on “bad debt” (and not “business loss”). At the hearing, it conceded the claim for “bad debt” and pressed for the claim for “business loss”. HELD dismissing the appeal:

The claim regarding “business loss” cannot be entertained because, though the CIT (A) has dealt with the issue, there is no specific ground. The claim is also not maintainable under Rule 27 since that applies only to a Respondent in the appeal.

Note: A contra view, in the same fact-situation, was taken in Mohan Meakin vs. DCIT where though the appeal only raised the issue of “bad debt”, the High Court permitted the claim of “business expenditure” to be raised for the first time by observing (para 11) “the right of the assessee to relief is not restricted to the plea raised by him before the departmental authorities or before the Tribunal. If grant of relief on another ground is justified, the Tribunal would be under a duty to grant that relief. The Tribunal is not restricted only to the questions raised before the departmental authorities. All questions, whether on law or fact, which relate to the assessment of the assessee, may be raised before the Tribunal“.

Related Judgements

  1. DCIT vs. MDS Switchgear (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the AO had granted deduction under sections 80HH & 80-I in the year of formation of the new industrial undertaking, he could not, in a subsequent year, deny the deduction on the ground that the conditions are not fulfilled, if he has not withdrawn the deduction granted in…
  2. Om Metals Infraprojects vs. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) 

    Where the assessee entered into an agreement with the Vidharbha Irrigation department for supply, erection and installation of dam gates and the question arose whether it was “developing an infrastructural facility” so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) or it was a mere contractor, HELD:
     
    (i) Though the…
  3. Om Shanti Co-op Society vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The assessee – society and its members had no right to construct additional floors on the existing building as they had exhausted the right available while constructing the flats in the building. The TDR was not obtained by the assessee and sold to the developer. Accordingly, the assessee had…
  4. Hindalco Industries vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The department has the option u/s 166 to assess either the non-resident principal or the representative assessee. Once the choice is made and the income is brought to tax in the hands of the principal, the same income cannot be again assessed u/s 163 in the hands of a…
  5. Besix Kier Dabhol SA vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The argument of the revenue that the abnormal debt-equity ratio attracts the “Thin Capitalization Rule” and that the “debt” should be characterized as “equity” for purposes of considering whether interest is deductible is not acceptable. Several countries have detailed “thin capitalization rules” (e.g. Belgium). However, there are no such…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*