The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.star Chemicals (Bombay) P.ltd
High Court
27 Feb 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.star Chemicals (Bombay) P.ltd
Date of order
27 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.star Chemicals (Bombay) P.ltd, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The Appeal is preferred on the following questions:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of 79,27,211/- on account of bad debt despite the debt has not become bad.
Decision: Considering that the issue is open for consideration question of law does not arise and consequently Appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
(-1-)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1915 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Star Chemicals (Bombay) P.Ltd....Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta and Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the
Appellant.
Mr.Vishnu S. Hadade, for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
P.C.:
. The Appeal is preferred on the following
questions:-
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the
order of CIT (A) in deleting the
disallowance of 79,27,211/- on account of
bad debt despite the debt has not become
bad.
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the
order of CIT (A) in directing the AO not to
(-2-)
exclude interest on bank deposit of Rs.3.64
lakhs from the business profit for the
purpose of computing deduction u/s.80HHC."
2. The issue arises from the amendment to
Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Subsequent to the amendment the Board has issued
Circular 551 dated 23rd January, 1990. The issue
pertained to bad debt in Para 6.6. The relevant
portion of the direction reads as under:-
"In order to eliminate the disputes in the
matter of determining the year in which a
bad debt can be allowed and also to
rationalise the provisions, the Amending
Act, 1987 has amended clause (vii) of
sub-section (1) and clause (i) of
sub-section (2) of the section to provide
that the claim for bad debt will be allowed
in the year in which such a bad debt has
been written off as irrecoverable in the
accounts of the assessee."
It is thus clear from the reading of the Section
itself and the Circular that if the assessee has
written off the debt as bad debt, that would satisfy
the purpose of the Section. The view that we have
taken has also been followed by the Delhi High Court
(-3-)
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Autometers Ltd.,292 ITR 345, which followed the earlier judgment inCIT vs. Morgan Securities and Credits P. Ltd. 292ITR 339. The same view was also taken in Deputy CIT
in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Autometers Ltd.,
292 ITR 345
CIT vs. Morgan Securities and Credits P. Ltd. 292
ITR 339. The same view was also taken in Deputy CITvs. Patidar Ginning and Pressing Co., 157 CTR 177.
ITR 339. The same view was also taken in Deputy CITvs. Patidar Ginning and Pressing Co., 157 CTR 177.
ITR 339.
vs. Patidar Ginning and Pressing Co., 157 CTR 177.
Considering the law as stated in so far as Question
No.1 the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be
faulted. Consequently the question of law would not
arise.
3. In so far as question No.2 is concerned the
Tribunal has modified the order of the CIT (A) and
directed the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the
issue in terms of what it has set out. Considering
that the issue is open for consideration question of
law does not arise and consequently Appeal stands
dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.