2021 (7) TMI 1289 - HC - Income Tax

Allowability of bad debts and provision for bad debts - HELD THAT - These questions are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT answering the question in favour of the assessee Method of valuation of unquoted securities adopted - HELD THAT - The question is covered against the Revenue and in favour of assessee by following the precedents in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd 2002 (11) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 860 - KERALA HIGH COURT . Claim of assessee under Section 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT - The extent to which the assessee is entitled to claim provision under Section 36(1)(viia) is again considered by the reported judgment of this Court in Lord Krishna Bank Ltd 2010 (10) TMI 860 - KERALA HIGH COURT - we answer the issue in favour of Revenue and against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions related to bad debts and provision for bad debts.
2. Correctness of the method of valuation of unquoted securities.
3. Claim of provision under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act.

Interpretation of provisions related to bad debts and provision for bad debts:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the tax return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2003-04. The Revenue raised substantial questions of law regarding the claim of bad debts and provision for bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court precedent in Catholic Syrian Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax was cited, emphasizing the importance of specific provisions and limitations. The Court upheld the assessee's claims based on the interpretation of relevant sections and directed remand to the Assessing Officer for computation in accordance with the law.

Correctness of the method of valuation of unquoted securities:
Another substantial question raised in the appeal was whether the method of valuation of unquoted securities adopted by the assessee was correct. Citing precedents in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee. The judgments highlighted that the valuation of unquoted securities should be based on rational methods such as RBI guidelines. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue, emphasizing the importance of following established valuation principles.

Claim of provision under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act:
The additional question raised in the appeal concerned the claim of provision under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. The Court referred to the judgment in Lord Krishna Bank Ltd to address the classification of branches as rural or non-rural based on population criteria. Analyzing the definition of "rural branch," the Court concluded that branches located in areas with populations less than 10,000 should be considered rural branches. By interpreting the provisions in light of the Census Report and relevant definitions, the Court sided with the Revenue and reversed the Tribunal's decision, reinstating the assessment.

In conclusion, the High Court of Kerala addressed various issues related to the interpretation of provisions concerning bad debts, valuation of unquoted securities, and the claim of provision under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. Through detailed analysis and reference to legal precedents, the Court provided comprehensive judgments on each issue, ultimately allowing the appeal in part and remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer for further action in accordance with the law.