9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the appellant-assessee for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2000-01.
Summary: The appellant-assessee, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) registered with Reserve Bank of India, created provisions for bad and doubtful debts as per RBI guidelines issued under section 45JA of the RBI Act. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction of these provisions in the computation of taxable income u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. The CIT (Appeals) remanded the matter, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision, stating that NBFCs are not covered by the specific provision u/s 36(1)(viia) allowing such deductions for certain banks. The Tribunal held that the Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) prohibits deduction of any provision for bad and doubtful debts for NBFCs, regardless of RBI guidelines. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the Income-tax Appeals were dismissed. In analyzing the conflict between the RBI Act and the Income-tax Act, the Court found that while the provisions of Chapter III-B of the RBI Act may override certain laws, they do not cover the Income-tax Act applicable to all assessees for computing taxable income. The Court emphasized that the special provision u/s 36(1)(viia) allows deductions for scheduled banks, co-operative banks, etc., based on specific criteria, which do not extend to NBFCs. Therefore, the Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) stands, disallowing deductions for NBFCs, even if provisions are made following RBI guidelines. The Court concluded that NBFCs are not entitled to deduction for bad and doubtful debts, as per the Income-tax Act, and upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Income-tax Appeals.
|
