Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.40 seconds)
Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-V on 20 August, 1980
cites
Section 36 in Sai University Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Excess ... vs Jwala Prasad Tiwari on 4 September, 1953
47. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in the present case omitted to consider the aforesaid Bombay decision even though it was expressly referred to in the statement of case and was relied upon by the AAC. The learned Advocate-General has drawn our attention to a subsequent decision given by the same Appellate Tribunal wherein a different view has been taken taken by the Tribunal as compared to the one which has been taken by it in the present case. The learned Advocate-General referred to the Ahmedabad Chartered Accountant's Journal, Vol. 4, Pt. 4, at p. 110, wherein the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Shri Bansidhar Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO has taken the view following the above Bombay decision in Jwala Prasad's case [1953] 24 ITR 537 that the posting of relevant entries in the profit and loss account in the assessee's books by the concerned assessee relating to debts in question was sufficient compliance with the provision of s. 36(2)(i)(b). The learned Advocate-General has adopted the said reasoning of the Tribunal as part of his argument. But even apart from the later decision of the Tribunal as we have already indicated above, on the language of s. 36(2)(i)(b), it appears clear to us that once the assessee, following a particular simple system of accounts, has posted the relevant debit entries in his profit and loss account and the corresponding credit entries in the bad debt reserve account, thereby clearly expressing his intention to treat the concerned debt as irrecoverable bad debt, he is said to have done what is required of him by the aforesaid statutory provision and no further duty can be foisted upon him requiring him to also close the existing ledger accounts of the concerned parties in his books of accounts. The net work of statute as indicated by the Legislature by enacting s. 36(2)(i)(b) does not spread its tentacles that far as Mr. Raval would like to have for the revenue. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the Tribunal in the present case was in error when it took the view that the assessee had not written off as irrecoverable in its accounts, the debts in question and that, therefore, the assessee was not entitle to the grant of deductions of these debts. We hold that the assessee had fully complied with the requirements of s. 36(2)(i)(b).
Tarulata Syam And Ors vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 28 April, 1977
In order to support his submission that, however harsh the statutory condition may be, it has got to be complied with, Mr. Raval invited our attention to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 485. This very case was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's decision in the said case is reported in [1977] 108 ITR 345 and hence we need not refer to the said Calcutta decision but we go straightway to the Supreme Court decision in that case. In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has observed that once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. In that case, the assessee had received the amount by way of loan or advance during the calendar year 1956, relevant to the assessment year 1957-58, from a private company of which he was a shareholder. Even though at the end of 1956, no advance or loan was due to the company by the assessee, as a result of credit entries made in his favour in his account in excess of that amount, it was held that because of the clear operation of ss. 2 (6A) (e) and 12 (1B) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, the assessee was liable to tax on the basis that he was deemed to have received the concerned amount as any by way of dividend. The aforesaid decision clearly laid down that, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be, the statute has got to be complied with. There cannot be any dispute about the legal position laid down by the aforesaid decisions. But the question in the present proceeding is as to whether the statutory conditions laid down by s. 36(2)(i)(b) have been complied with or not. If they are complied with, the matter must end there. If they are not complied with, the matter must necessarily end in the reverse way.
Associated Banking Corporation Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay-1 on 22 October, 1964
40. We may now turn to a couple of decisions on the point. The first decision is of the Supreme Court in Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1. The said decision arose out of a case which was covered by the earlier provisions of ss. 10(1), 10 (2) (xi) of the Indian I. T. Act 1922. The question in that case was as to whether absence of entries in the books of account of assessee regarding bad debt would absolve the ITO of his duty to determine and estimate the extent of bad debt suffered by the concerned assessee. In that connection, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under (headnote) :
Shree Bansidhar Spinning And Weaving ... vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 11 January, 1980
47. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in the present case omitted to consider the aforesaid Bombay decision even though it was expressly referred to in the statement of case and was relied upon by the AAC. The learned Advocate-General has drawn our attention to a subsequent decision given by the same Appellate Tribunal wherein a different view has been taken taken by the Tribunal as compared to the one which has been taken by it in the present case. The learned Advocate-General referred to the Ahmedabad Chartered Accountant's Journal, Vol. 4, Pt. 4, at p. 110, wherein the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Shri Bansidhar Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO has taken the view following the above Bombay decision in Jwala Prasad's case [1953] 24 ITR 537 that the posting of relevant entries in the profit and loss account in the assessee's books by the concerned assessee relating to debts in question was sufficient compliance with the provision of s. 36(2)(i)(b). The learned Advocate-General has adopted the said reasoning of the Tribunal as part of his argument. But even apart from the later decision of the Tribunal as we have already indicated above, on the language of s. 36(2)(i)(b), it appears clear to us that once the assessee, following a particular simple system of accounts, has posted the relevant debit entries in his profit and loss account and the corresponding credit entries in the bad debt reserve account, thereby clearly expressing his intention to treat the concerned debt as irrecoverable bad debt, he is said to have done what is required of him by the aforesaid statutory provision and no further duty can be foisted upon him requiring him to also close the existing ledger accounts of the concerned parties in his books of accounts. The net work of statute as indicated by the Legislature by enacting s. 36(2)(i)(b) does not spread its tentacles that far as Mr. Raval would like to have for the revenue. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the Tribunal in the present case was in error when it took the view that the assessee had not written off as irrecoverable in its accounts, the debts in question and that, therefore, the assessee was not entitle to the grant of deductions of these debts. We hold that the assessee had fully complied with the requirements of s. 36(2)(i)(b).