2019 (2) TMI 1278 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - Section 14A cannot be applied for the year, since the machinery provisions have not been brought in. As per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. ESSAR Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd., 2018 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Section 14A has application only from the year 2007-08. Hence, the question raised is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. MAT - addition made by AO for computation of the book profits under Section 115JB, adding on the provision for diminition in the value of assets as claimed by the assessee in its return - Held that - Though the assessee claimed a larger provision in its return, the Assessing Officer has specifically declined the same and allowed in accordance with the accounting principles, in the regular assessment made in the case of the assessee. In such circumstances, it is only proper that the allowance as made by the Assessing Officer alone is added back for the purpose of computing the book profits under Section 115JB. The Assessing Officer cannot blow hot and cold and with respect to the very same claim there cannot be an amount disallowed in regular assessment which is added back under Section 115JB. The provision for upward revision by virtue of the specific item found in Section 115JB can only be of that permissible as a deduction in regular assessment. We, hence, uphold the order of the Tribunal and answer the question on facts against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Write back of excess provision - Held that - The assessee on the basis of a dis-allowance made in the previous year, wrote back the amounts, which were shown as provision for that year. The Tribunal found that there was no possibility of the assessee being aware of the provision being disallowed when the returns were filed. Hence, it was held that there was no relevance to the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT ). We also find that the tax effect for the subject year only increases by the write back from the provision. We do not find any question of law to be answered on the said issue Disallowance of claim of bad debts - Held that - Tribunal, on facts, found that the assessee had claimed bad debts in excess of that found in the provision for bad and doubtful debts. However, to the extent, there was provision for bad and doubtful debts, it debited that account and the excess claimed was debited in the profit and loss account. We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal on facts and find no question of law arising.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for specific assessment years.
2. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer for computation of book profits under Section 115JB.
3. Relevance of writing back amounts shown as provision in response to disallowance made in a previous year.
4. Deletion of disallowance of claim of bad debts.

Issue 1: Application of Section 14A
The court addressed the application of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the years in question. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was concluded that Section 14A can only be applied from the year 2007-08 onwards. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the Tribunal's order on different grounds.

Issue 2: Deletion of Addition for Computation of Book Profits
Regarding the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer for the computation of book profits under Section 115JB, the court acknowledged that the provision for diminution in the value of assets must be added back. However, it was noted that the Assessing Officer allowed the provision in accordance with accounting principles, as per AS-13. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that only the amount allowed by the Assessing Officer should be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB.

Issue 3: Writing Back Amounts as Provision
In the case where the assessee wrote back amounts shown as provision in response to a disallowance made in a previous year, the court found that there was no relevance to a previous decision. It was concluded that the tax effect for the subject year only increased by the write back from the provision, and no legal question required an answer. Thus, the Tribunal's decision was upheld.

Issue 4: Deletion of Disallowance of Claim of Bad Debts
Regarding the deletion of disallowance of the claim of bad debts, the court noted that the assessee had claimed bad debts in excess of the provision for bad and doubtful debts. However, the excess claimed was debited in the profit and loss account. The court found no issues with the Tribunal's decision on facts and concluded that no legal question arose. Therefore, all appeals were rejected without any order on costs.