Piyushbhai G. Patel v. DCIT - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. JSW Ltd. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2142 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Otters Club v. DIT & Ors. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0689 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Lal Woollen & Silk Mills (P) Ltd. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0035 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1998 TaxPub(DT) 0342 (SC)
REFERRED Sumati Dayal v. CIT 1995 TaxPub(DT) 1173 (SC)
REFERRED Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0998 (Ker-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2457 (Ahd-Trib) IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH WASEEM AHMED, A.M. & MADHUMITA ROY, J.M. Piyushbhai G. Patel v. DCIT ITA Nos. 1909 to 1911/Ahd/2018 1 June, 2020 In favour of Assessee. Assessee by: Manish J. Shah Revenue by: L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R ORDER *Waseem Ahmed, A.M.* The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-5, Vadodara, of even 28-6-2018 (in short learned CIT(A) ) arising in the matter of Assessment Order passed under s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-inafter referred to as 'the Act') relevant to the assessment years 2012-2013 to 2014-15. First we take up ITA No.1909/Ahd/2018 for assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal :-- 1. Order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disallowing claim of bad debts to the tune of Rs. 675359.00. He ought to have allowed the same considering facts of the case. 3. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that in assessment year 2011-12, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed our claim of bad debts though facts of both the years were identical. 4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the order of Commissioner (Appeals) of assessment year 2011-12 allowing my claim of bad debts on the identical facts. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2457 (Ahd-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH

WASEEM AHMED, A.M. & MADHUMITA ROY, J.M.

Piyushbhai G. Patel v. DCIT

ITA Nos. 1909 to 1911/Ahd/2018

1 June, 2020

In favour of Assessee.

Assessee by: Manish J. Shah

Revenue by: L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R

ORDER

Waseem Ahmed, A.M.

The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-5, Vadodara, of even 28-6-2018 (in short learned CIT(A) ) arising in the matter of Assessment Order passed under s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-inafter referred to as 'the Act') relevant to the assessment years 2012-2013 to 2014-15.

First we take up ITA No.1909/Ahd/2018 for assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal :--

1. Order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law as well as on facts.

2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disallowing claim of bad debts to the tune of Rs. 675359.00. He ought to have allowed the same considering facts of the case.

3. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that in assessment year 2011-12, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed our claim of bad debts though facts of both the years were identical.

4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the order of Commissioner (Appeals) of assessment year 2011-12 allowing my claim of bad debts on the identical facts.