{"id":3137,"date":"2011-05-13T23:56:10","date_gmt":"2011-05-13T18:26:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=3137"},"modified":"2011-05-13T23:56:10","modified_gmt":"2011-05-13T18:26:10","slug":"mohan-meakin-limited-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-if-bad-debt-not-allowable-us-361vii-claim-for-deduction-us-371-can-be-raised-even-before-high-court-for-first-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/mohan-meakin-limited-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-if-bad-debt-not-allowable-us-361vii-claim-for-deduction-us-371-can-be-raised-even-before-high-court-for-first-time\/","title":{"rendered":"Mohan Meakin Limited vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (mohan_meakin_bad_debt_business_expenditure.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nIf “bad debt” not allowable u\/s 36(1)(vii), claim for deduction u\/s 37(1) can be raised for first time even before High Court
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The assessee advanced sums to a supplier in order to obtain regular supplies. As the supplier failed to deliver the goods or to refund the advance, the assessee claimed the loss as a bad debt u\/s 36(1)(vii). The AO rejected the claim though the CIT (A) allowed it. On appeal by the department, the Tribunal upheld the stand of the AO on the ground that the conditions of s. 36(2) were not satisfied. In the High Court, the assessee conceded that s. 36(1)(vii) was not applicable but pleaded for the first time that the loss should be allowed u\/s 37(1) as a business loss<\/em>. HELD upholding the claim: <\/p>\n

(i) U\/s 28 r.w.s. 29, computation of income has to be in accordance with the provisions contained in s. 30 to 43 which includes s. 37(1). If a loss of a debt does not come within s. 36(1)(vii), a claim can be made u\/s 37(1)<\/strong>. There is a clear distinction between a business expenditure and a business loss, the former is indicative of a volition but in loss it comes upon him so to speak as ab extra. Non-capital expenditure incurred for the purpose of business can be deducted u\/s 37(1). The advances made by the assessee were not capital in nature and were of a type which would be within the contemplation of the words “laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business”. S. 37 (1) is a residuary section extending the allowance to items of business expenditure and not of business losses which are deductible on the ordinary principles of commercial accounting<\/strong> (Chenab Forest Co<\/strong> 96 ITR 568 (J&K) & Mysore Sugar Co<\/strong> 46 ITR 649 (SC) followed); <\/p>\n

(ii) Merely because the claim was made under one provision of the Act and not under another provision does not debar the assessee from claiming deduction u\/s 37(1) even if it was not raised before the lower authorities. <\/p>\n

\nNote<\/strong>: A similar claim was allowed in DCIT vs. Edelweiss Capital Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)<\/a><\/strong>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

U\/s 28 r.w.s. 29, computation of income has to be in accordance with the provisions contained in s. 30 to 43 which includes s. 37(1). If a loss of a debt does not come within s. 36(1)(vii), a claim can be made u\/s 37(1)<\/strong>. There is a clear distinction between a business expenditure and a business loss, the former is indicative of a volition but in loss it comes upon him so to speak as ab extra. Non-capital expenditure incurred for the purpose of business can be deducted u\/s 37(1). The advances made by the assessee were not capital in nature and were of a type which would be within the contemplation of the words “laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business”. S. 37 (1) is a residuary section extending the allowance to items of business expenditure and not of business losses which are deductible on the ordinary principles of commercial accounting<\/strong> (Chenab Forest Co<\/strong> 96 ITR 568 (J&K) & Mysore Sugar Co<\/strong> 46 ITR 649 (SC) followed)<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}