9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -4-1989 as per the amended S.36(1)(vii) of the Act, no evidence is required in proof of a debt becoming bad, only requirement is that such debt should be written off in the accounts as irrecoverable and prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold so now and delete the impugned addition. 4. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. that now, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of TRF Ltd. as reported in 323 ITR 397. Ld. D.R. supported the order of austerities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee. We find that as per the assessment order, there is no dispute regarding this aspect that the bad debts in question were actually written off by the assessee in its books of account. We also find that there is no dispute regarding the compliance of the provisions of Section 36(2) of the act and the only objection of the A.O. was that the assessee has not established that the debts had become bad. Now, this aspect is squarely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder that Income tax Disarmament hires best of cars for less than Rs.25,000/- per month which also includes maintenance and driver's salary and, therefore, the payment made by the assessee for vehicle hiring is excessive. In our considered opinion, one more opportunity may be allowed to the assessee in the interest of justice to prove its case that the payment made by it to the related person for hiring the car is not excessive. We, therefore, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No.2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground No.3 is as under: "3.0 EXCLUSION OF BANK INTEREST and DUTY DRAW BACK FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB (Para 6 to 6.3 of the Asstt .Order) (Para 4 to 4.3 of the Appellate Order) 3.01 On the facts and circumstances of your appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming that interest on margin money deposit with bank and duty draw back are required to be excluded from the profits for computing deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. 3.02 Your appellant says ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT as reported in 332 ITR 42 and in that case, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has duly considered all the available Tribunal decisions being the decision rendered in the case of ACIT vs Hindustan Mint and Agro Products P. Ltd. as reported in 315 (A.T.) 0401 (ITAT Del.) and the other tribunal decision rendered in the case of ACIT vs Ragini Garments as reported in 294 ITR (A.T.) 15. It was also submitted that other available judgements of various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court were also considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and hence, the matter may be restored back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision in the light of this latest decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 14. Ld. D.R. of the revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 15. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court cited by the Ld. A.R. We find that this is a latest judgment which was rendered on 10.01.2011 after considering all the available decisions of the Tribunal, various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62,410/- out of office expenses on the ground that there is huge increase in the expenses compared to the last year and most of the expenses were incurred in cash. 3.2 Your appellant says and submits that for the impugned expenditure, full details whereof are on record, was incurred by it in its capacity as a business house wholly and exclusively for the purposes of its business and that it does not fall within the mischief of section 37 of the Act, and prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold so now and delete the impugned addition." 17. It was submitted by both the sides that ground No.1 of this year is identical to ground No.2 in assessment year 2004-05 and ground No.2 of this year is identical to ground No.3 in assessment year 2004-05 and both these grounds may be decided on similar lines as per the decision in assessment year 2004-05. 18. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that the ground No.1 of this year is identical to ground No.2 in assessment year 2004-05 and similarly, ground No.2 of this year is similar to grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
