9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored." 3. The assessee is a banking company incorporated in USA. Under section 36(1)( viia )( b ) of the Act. The assessee was entitled to claim as a deduction while computing total income. Provision for bad and doubtful debts an amount not exceeding 5 per cent of the total income computed before making deduction on account of provision for doubtful debts and Chapter VI-A of the Act. Under section 36(1)( vii ), the amount of any debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year is to be allowed as a deduction while computing total income. Proviso to section 36(1)( vii ) provides as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer allowed deduction of Rs. 30,82,06,745 because it was within the 5 per cent of the total income as computed by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and as per section 36(1)( viia ) of the Act. The Assessing Officer allowed a further deduction of Rs. 21,54,32,944 under section 36(1)( viia ) of the Act (Rs. 30,82,06,745 + 21,54,32,944 = 52,36,39,689). Consequent to order of learned CIT(A) dated 26-7-2004 against the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), the total income of the assessee got reduced. Consequent to such reduction the deduction to be allowed under section 36(1)( viia ) also was reduced to Rs. 27,41,63,404 instead of Rs. 30,82,06,745 which was allowed by the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order as per proviso below section 36(1)( viia ) has been restricted by an amount of Rs. 3,57,54,509. In view of the provision of section 36(1)( viia ) being insufficient to meet the deduction of bad debt actually occurred, provisions of section 36(1)( viia ), proviso are applicable. Accordingly the claim of the appellant of further deduction of Rs. 3,57,54,509 is in order. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim and recomputed the income." 6. Aggrieved by the order of learned CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, learned Departmental Representative was not in a position to explain as to how the order of learned CIT(A) is not correct. We are of the view that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
