Case Law Details
SAP India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
We find that apart from writing off of bad debts in the books of accounts, the assessee has to fulfill this requirement of section 36(2) of the IT Act also that the amount in question has been considered as income in the relevant year or in an earlier year. As per the assessment order and as per the order of CIT(A), the assessee has not given any explanation or details regarding exact nature of transactions with the parties in question. In the absence of that, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the assessee is complying with the requirements of section 36(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 or not. Under these facts and in the interest of justice, we feel it proper to restore this matter to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee is directed to furnish complete details before CIT(A) regarding the nature of transaction with each party and the assessee has to establish that the assessee is complying with the requirements of section 36 (1) (vii) and 36(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides, Learned CIT(A) should decide this issue afresh. Accordingly, ground No.1 is allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Bangalore passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) and u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. At the time of hearing, the LdAR has not pressed Ground of appeal no.2 and is treated as withdrawn and dismissed.The assessee has raised the Grounds of appeal as under :
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
