Case Law Details
M/s Outworks Solutions [P] Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi)
No doubt, the assessee claimed write off as bed debt but it is equally true that the assessee did explain the sequence of events which prompted it for the said write off. There is no denying that the assessee does not fulfill the conditions mandated in section 36(2) r.w.s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is equally true that the loss of security deposit is business loss in the revenue field because the said security deposit was given in the ordinary course of business of the assessee and since the assessee had to shift the business premises on the wake of the fire, the write off became imminent because the landlord declined to refund the security deposit. In our considered opinion, the write off has to be considered in the light of provisions of section 28 r.w.s 37 of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 8,31,852/-
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – I, Noida dated 29.01.2015 pertaining to A.Y 2009-10.
2. The assessee has raised five substantive grounds of appeal. At the very outset, the ld. AR stated that he is not pressing Ground No. 1,3,4, and 5. These grounds are dismissed as not pressed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
