ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI V. UNISON HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 4471/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), which had provided substantial relief to Unison Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The primary issues in the appeal were the deletion of the addition of INR 4,02,52,637 on account of disallowance of bad debt written off, and the deletion of the addition of INR 1,99,64,269 on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal examined the facts and legal provisions, including the application of section 36(1)(vii) regarding bad debts and section 14A concerning disallowances related to exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary conditions for claiming deductions and that the disallowance under section 14A was correctly limited to the amount of exempt income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714459 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: TRF Ltd. vs CIT, Vijaya Bank vs CIT, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs DCIT, H.T. Media Ltd. vs PCIT, PCIT vs Nalco Water India Ltd, PCIT vs United Spirits Ltd, Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT, CIT vs Holcim India Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDER KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: KAVITA JHA; .
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D; Provision of bad debts
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

"ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4471/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ACIT, CIrlce-25(1), Delhi vs Unison Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.2, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-2nd, New Delhi-110070. PAN-AAACU0455C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.DR Assessee by Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr.Adv., Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Akash Shukla, Adv. Date of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-8/10712/2016-17 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the order dated 23.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and is running hotels. The return of income was e-filed on 29.11.2014, declaring total income at INR 7,21,35,196/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS by way of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 01.09.2015. Thereafter, various notices were issued from time to time and submissions were taken from the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 2 assessee and finally, the assessment was completed at an income of INR 30,38,83,394/- by making various additions/disallowances. 3. Against the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who grant substantial relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,02,52,637/- on account of disallowance of bad debt written off. 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,99,64,269/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, append or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of deduction of INR 4,02,52,637/- claimed on account of bad debts written off. 6. Before us, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supports the order of the AO and submits that the assessee has failed to establish that in the ledger accounts of the debtors, the corresponding entry of bad debt written off, has been made nor the said amount was routed through P&L A/c therefore, the conditions as enumerated u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act for claiming the bad debts have not been fulfilled. He further submits that the assessee claimed bad debts in the regular accounts from whom the transactions are being carried out on regular basis Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 3 therefore, no bad debts could be claimed in these accounts. Ld. Sr. DR further submits that since the assessee has reduced the amount of provision of bad debts and has not routed this amount through Profit & Loss Account therefore, the same is not allowable as expenses. Accordingly, he prayed for the restoration of the disallowance made by the AO. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has made provision for bad debts which were debited in the Profit & Loss Account and in earlier years when the provisions were made towards bad debts, the same was added back to the total income and in the year under appeal when the accounts were written off in the books of account, the necessary amount of bad debt is claimed in the computation of income as expenses. It is further submitted by Ld.AR that there is no dispute that the debtors against whom the bad debts are claimed, were offered for income in earlier years. Ld. AR also submits that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had produced complete books of accounts and it was explained to the AO that in the accounts of the debtors, necessary entries for the bad debts written off were made. It is the submissions of the Ld.AR that Ld.CIT(A) after considering these facts has deleted the disallowance so made and requested for the confirmation of the order of Ld. CIT(A). Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs CIT reported in 323 ITR 397 (SC). Ld.AR also filed the written submissions in this regard which reads as under:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 4 Observations/Findings of CIT(A)- Decided in favour of the assessee  The CIT(A) order held that the twin conditions for claiming deduction of write-off of bad debts in the case of the assessee have been satisfied as under. (a) That at the time of creating provision for doubtful debts, the assessee had offered the same as income in the return of income in the respective assessment year (@Page 69-70 of the order); and (b) Only when the debtors became bad, the assessee reversed the said provision and claimed deduction thereof. * Thus, the mandatory conditions for claiming write-off of bad-debts in terms of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act have been fulfilled. [(i) the provision for doubtful debt was debited and the corresponding debtor account has been credited, thereby reducing the debtors). Undisputedly, the assessee had submitted complete details of write-off's (Refer Pg.72); thus, allegation of assessing officer that the details were not furnished is factually incorrect. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following decisions: (i) DCIT vs Algonomy Software Pvt. Ltd.: ITA Nos. 943 to 946/Bang/2023; (ii) Gujarat State Financial Corporation vs. ACIT: LT.A. Nos. 1547 and 1903/Ahd/2014; (iii) Vidres India Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT: LT.A. No. 2521/Ahd/2017  There is no statutory requirement to prove actual bad debts; unilateral action of writing off of debt is sufficient for claiming expense [Refer: TRF Ltd. vs CIT: 323 ITR 397 (SC), PCIT vs Nalco Water India Ltd: [2022] 137 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta), PCIT vs United Spirits Ltd: 442 ITR 451 (Karnataka)].” 8. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the AO has made disallowance for the reason that there are many established names and assessee is carried out transactions with these parties on regular basis and therefore, in those accounts, bad debts should not be claimed without any cogent reason. It is further seen that the AO observed that necessary entries in the ledger accounts for bad debts were not carried out. For claiming the deduction on account of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act, there are only two conditions:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 5 (i) The income towards such debtor must be declared in preceding years and (ii) The accounts were squared to the extent of bad debt claimed in the books of accounts. 9. In the instant case, we find that the assessee successfully demonstrate that both the conditions have been fulfilled for claiming bad debts as per section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) after considering these facts, has deleted the disallowance by observing as under:- D. Findings i) “The Assessing Officer in one of the grounds taken for making addition has stated that ‘The perusal of the list shows that many of them are established names and must be having transactions with the assessee even today. The assessee has not given any reason as to why they would not pay the assessee, more so when some of them are government institutions except submitting that these debtors are the pre-fire debtors. It is pertinent to mention that a fire had taken place in the hotel in 2008.\" The appellant in this context has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited Vs. CIT 2010 (323) ITR 397(SC) wherein it was held that the \"This position in law is well-settled. After 1st April, 1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that it was not necessary for the appellant to establish as to why the debtors are not making the payment or as to how the debt has become irrecoverable. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in considering this as a ground for making the addition. ii) The Assessing Officer has in the assessment order stated that the appellant had failed to file various details related to bad debts in its ITR. The extract of the observations of the Assessing Officer are: \"However, the perusal of P & L account showed that no such amount was either debited or credited. The assessee was queried about the same during the course of discussion. Vide reply dated 16-12-2016, the assessee submitted that the provision for bad debt was already made of Rs. 4,48,87,609/ as reflected in the balance sheet out of which bad debt of Rs 4,02,52,637 has been written off during the previous year. It was further Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 6 seen that assessee has made mentioned '0' in the ITR where the details of bad debt written off has to be filed as well as against Provision for doubtful debts. This appears to be so because there is mandatory requirement of furnishing PAN of the debtor and specifying non-PAN amount.\" The appellant in this context has submitted that during the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3), the appellant had submitted complete debtor wise detail of bad debts written off. Also, the assessee had produced its complete books of accounts, including Ledger Accounts of Sundry Debtors. The appellant has stated that the ledger accounts of the aforesaid sundry debtors show that the debt written off was taken into account in computing the income of the assessee from hotel business of earlier FYs. The ledger accounts show the FY in which such income was recognized in accounts by the assessee. Further, a perusal of ledger account of provision for bad and doubtful debts reveals that the provision was created in earlier year starting from FY. 2003-04 by debiting to P&L A/c and such provision was added back to net profit to arrive at total income in the ITR of that year. Pertinently, the major part of the provision was made in FY. 2007-08 and FY. 2008-09 to provide for bad and doubtful debts due to major fire in hotel at Vasant Kunj run by the assessee. Since, the details not furnished in the ITR have been submitted during the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3), by way of production of ledger account of the debtors along with the books of account and other details as stated above, the absence of the information which was required to be furnished in the ITR alone cannot become the grounds to disallow the bad debts claimed. This absence of furnishing of information is a default technical in nature but the same has been obviated when the details have been furnished during the scrutiny proceedings of the appellant. iii) The Assessing Officer has held that the appellant had claimed a bad debt of Rs. 4,02,52,637/- but the same has not been passed through the P & L account. The Assessing Officer has made addition stating that the appellant has not debited the P & L accounts but the directly reduced it from its income. The Assessing Officer has relied upon the decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC). In the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC), placing reliance on the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that after 1.1.1989, a mere provision for bad debt will not be entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). If an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the assets account like sundry debtors account that would constitute a write off of an actual debt. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 7 The appellant in this context has stated that it was following the mandatory accounting standards and principles obligated upon the assessee to create provision for bad and doubtful debt by way of debit to the P&L A/c with respect to the trade receivable/ sundry debtors the recovery of which the management considered doubtful as at the end of the Financial Year, Accordingly, the assessee created provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee added back such provision for bad and doubtful debts to its net profit for the purpose of computation of its total income in the ITR of the year in which provision was made. While creating provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee did not credit such provision to account of its Sundry debtors/Trade Receivable in its books in the same year. Subsequently, when the management found the recovery impossible, the company wrote off the account of Sundry Debtor/Trade Receivable by crediting such account and by debiting the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. The appellant has further contended that in this process, both provision for bad and doubtful debt and Sundry Debtor/Trade Receivable gets eliminated from the books of account to the extent written off. The appellant claims such amount of bad debt is written off in its ITR in the year in which the provision for bad and doubtful debt is credited to the account of Sundry Debtor/Trade Receivable. The appellant thus, argued that through the above accounting principle, the company created the provision for bad and doubtful debt by way of debit to P&L account and partially squared up such provision against bad debts written off by crediting provision for doubtful debts to the account of Sundry debtor/Trade Receivable in the year in which the bad debts have to written off. iv) The appellant has provided in tabular form, the details of the amount of Provision of Bad and Doubtful debts made by debiting in the P & L account and the amount of Provision of Bad and Doubtful debts added back in the ITR in a year wise format from 2003-04 to 2013-14. The Assessing Officer has also mentioned in the assessment order that the Provision for Bad debts have been routed through the P & L account in the previous year 2008-09. It has also been acknowledged in the assessment order that a fire had taken place in the hotel in 2008. In this context, it is pertinent to point out that the amount of Provision of Bad and Doubtful debts made in the previous year 2008-09, in which the fire had taken place was 3,29,87,589/-, out of the total bad debts of 4,48,87,607/- for the total period 2003-04 to 2013-14, The appellant has relied upon the decision of the JCIT Vs M/s VIJAYA BANK 2016-TIOL-1460-ITAT-BANG in which the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra) has been discussed in detail. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 8 v) From the above discussions, it is clear that for the write off of debts, the following conditions have to be satisfied. That the Provision for Bad and Doubtful debts is made in account by debiting to the P & L account & The account of Sundry Debtors is credited and thus the debts are reduced. The appellant has submitted that it had made the Provisions for Bad and Doubtful debts in the year in which the management has considered the debts to be doubtful. The appellant has stated that such Provision for Bad and Doubtful debts were then added back to the net profit of the appellant for the purpose of computation of its total income in the ITR of that year. Subsequently, in the year, when the recovery of the debts was found to be not possible, then the Sundry Debtors account was credited. Thus, through this, both the Provision for Bad and Doubtful debts and the Sundry Debtors account gets obliterated from the books of accounts of the appellant to the extent, the bad debts have been written off. Therefore, the appellant has claimed bad debts written off in the year in which the Provision for Bad and Doubtful debts has been credited to the account of Sundry Debtors. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the bad debts have been correctly written off in the year in which these bad debts are credited to the account of Sundry Debtors/ Trade Receivables. By this treatment, both the conditions as laid down in the case of VIJAYA BANK are satisfied. Firstly, the Provision for Bad and Doubtful debts is debited to the P & L Account in the year in which the debts are considered doubtful and then the Sundry Debtors account is credited in the year in which the bad debts are written off. Thus, both the conditions which are needed for the write off are satisfied. This treatment appears to be in consonance with the accounting treatment as in consonance with This treatment appears to be in provided in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank, which has been discussed in detail in the judgment of JCIT Vs M/s VIJAYA BANK 2016-TIOL-1460-ITAT-BANG. In the result, this ground of appeal taken by the appellant is allowed and the addition made on account of bad debts of Rs. 4,02,52,637/- to the income of the appellant is deleted.” 10. On perusal of the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and further placing reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF (supra) and also in the case of Vijaya Bank vs CIT [2010] 323 ITR 1066 (SC), we find that the Revenue has failed controvert the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 9 findings given by Ld.CIT(A) who after verification of the facts held that the amount of bad debts was duly included the income in the preceding years and necessary entries of bad debts were in the books of account in respective ledger accounts and therefore, there is no error in the order of Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on account of bad debts at INR 4,02,52,637/-. In view of above discussion, the order of Ld.CIT(A) on this account is hereby, upheld. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is thus, dismissed. 11. In Ground No.2, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of INR 1,99,64,269/- made u/s 14A of the Act. 12. Before us, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue supports the order of AO and submits that the assessee is having investments in its subsidiary companies and made investments in listed and unlisted shares and securities from where it is receiving exempt income of INR 2,65,000/-. He further submits that the assessee suo-motto disallowed INR 15,689/- which was later revised at INR 34,065/-u/s 14A of the Act. Ld. Sr. DR submits that the AO after recording the satisfaction that the assessee has investments having exempt income, had invoking the provision of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and made the computation in accordance with the formula provided in Rule 8D and therefore, the disallowance so made, deserves to be restored. 13. On the other hand, Ld.AR for the assessee vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submits that Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance of INR 2,65,000/- being the amount of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 10 exempt income received during the year by following the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. vs CIT in Civil Appeal No.9607-9615 of 2011, 2963 and 3367 of 2012 and the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.) and the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 90CCH 081-Del-HC. Ld.AR further submits that Ld. CIT(A) considered the fact that the assessee is having exempt income to the extent only of INR 2,65,000/- thus ground taken by the Revenue of entire disallowance of INR 1,99,64,269/- made by AO deserves to be modified to that extent. Ld.AR also filed the written submissions in this regard, which reads as under:- “That the assessee received a dividend of Rs.2.65 Lakhs only. Suo-motto disallowance of Rs.15,689 made by the assessee, in the ITR. The said computation was revised in the course of assessment proceedings of Rs. 34,065. Observations/Findings of CIT(A)- Decided in favour of the assessee  CIT(A) observed @ Pg. 91 that the assessee had sufficient own funds and have also not accepted any fresh loans during the year under consideration.  The CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of exempt income received. - The assessee is not in appeal against the restriction of disallowance under section 14A to Rs. 2.65 Lakhs by CIT(A). - It is a settled law that, in any case, the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. [Refer: Cheminvest Ltd. vs CIT: 378 ITR33 (Del); PCIT vs MCDONALD'S INDIA PVT. LTD.: ITA 725/2018; DCIT vs Chiripal Industries Ltd.: I.T.A. No. 2743/Ahd/2017]” 14. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 11 observed that Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance of INR 2,65,000/- by following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) and the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd.(supra) wherein it is held that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot be exceed the amount of exempt income. The observations made by Ld. CIT(A) while restricting the addition to INR 2,65,000/- are as under:- Findings: “From the consideration of facts and evidences placed on record, the following facts are found: a) That the investment made by the appellant in share application money and equity shares as on 31/03/2013 is 72,12,65,483/- whereas the interest free funds as on 31/03/2013 was Rs. 127.12.63,136/- Further, the investment made by the appellant in share application money and equity shares as on 31/03/2014 is 72,12,65,336/- whereas the interest free funds as on 31/03/2014 was Rs. 132,62,30,395/- Thus, from the facts it is seen that the interest free funds were more than the investments made by the appellant. It is further seen that the appellant has not accepted any fresh the loan during the year. The appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 9607-9615 of 2011, 2963 and 3367 of 2012, wherein while dealing with the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act, where interest-free owned funds of the assessee exceeded the amount of investment made by it in assets which yielded tax free income, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no addition under section 14A of the Act is called for. b) The appellant has further relied upon the judgment of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of H. T. Media Ltd. Vs PCIT, (2017) 156 DTR (DEL) 250, stating that the case of the appellant no satisfaction had been recorded by the AO that the appellant had not correctly claimed the expenditure incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. c) Further the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 151 DTR (SC) 89. The appellant has argued that the assessment order did not disclose any basis establishing a reasonable nexus between the expenditure disallowed and the earning of the dividend income. The assessment order did not display any material to prove that any part of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 12 borrowing had been diverted to earn tax-free income despite the interest-free funds of the assessee exceeding the amount of investments yielding tax-free income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this order had held that where assessment order did not display any material to prove that any part of the borrowing had been diverted to earn tax-free income despite the interest-free funds of the assessee exceeding the amount of investments yielding tax-free income, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. d) The appellant has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) and CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081- Del-HC, wherein it has been held that the amount of disallowance u/s. 14A can not exceed the amount of exempt income. e) The appellant has relied upon the judgment of the following Court to argue as to how the 2nd and 3rd limb of Rule 8D is not applicable in the case of the appellant. a) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 151 DTR (SC) 89; b) H.T. Media Ltd. v. PCIT (2017) 156 DTR (Del) 250; c) PCIT v. Adani Enterprises Ltd. (2017) 152 DTR (Guj) 102; d) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2017) 151 DTR (P&H) 220 e) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom)\" From the above discussion and the case laws as cited above, it is clear that now it is a settled law that the amount of disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, as laid down in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) and CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 9607-9615 of 2011, 2963 and 3367 of 2012, the disallowance in this case is restricted to Rs. 2,65,000/-.” 15. From the perusal of the above observations, we find no error in the findings of ld. CIT(A) who followed the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and accordingly, we do not interfere in the findings of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby, upheld. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is accordingly, dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.4471/Del/2024 Page | 13 16. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "