| Case ID |
d3a27f96-0b5c-4caf-99fd-642d74b0e49e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 1952 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1952 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1952 |
| Decision |
The court held that in order for a debt to qualify as bad or doubtful, it must be considered irrecoverable by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). It was emphasized that the determination of when a debt becomes irrecoverable is not solely at the creditor's discretion, nor can it be decided merely by writing off the debt in accounting books. The case was remitted back to the Tribunal to ascertain whether the loan had indeed become irrecoverable prior to the accounting year in question. The implications of this ruling highlight the necessity for taxpayers to demonstrate the irrecoverability of debts in the context of income tax deductions, thereby impacting financial reporting and tax liabilities significantly. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of Section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act, focusing on the criteria for classifying debts as bad or doubtful. The Bombay High Court elucidated that a debt must be deemed irrecoverable by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for it to be eligible for deduction. The case involved Raja Bahadur Mukundlal Bansilal, a money lender, who sought to claim a deduction for a debt he wrote off. The court clarified that merely writing off a debt does not suffice; the taxpayer must substantiate that the debt became irrecoverable during the accounting year. The decision underscores the importance of accurate accounting practices and the role of the ITO in determining the status of debts, which is crucial for compliance with tax regulations. This ruling serves as a vital reference for future cases involving bad debts and tax deductions, emphasizing the need for clarity in financial documentation and the interpretation of tax laws. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Chagla, C.J.
|
| Lawyers |
Sir Jamshedji Kanga,
G.N. Joshi
|
| Petitioners |
Raja Bahadur Mukundlal Bansilal
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1952 SLD 293,
(1952) 22 ITR 94
|
| Other Citations |
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chitnavis [1932] 59 I.A. 290,
34 Bom. L.R. 1071,
137 I.C. 772,
28 N.L.R. 205,
1932 Comp. Cas. 464,
6 I.T.C. 453
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
36(1)(vii),
10(2)(xi)
|