9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and it was merely an estimation then the original assessment of the assessing officer would hold. Rural Branches - provision for bad and doubtful debts, Reserve for bad and doubtful debt further provision & Reserve for bad & doubtful debts 5% of taxable income - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the said items were unascertained liabilities and therefore added back to the book profits of the assessee by invoking Section 115-J(1A) read with Explanation (c) of the Act? - Held that:- Decided in favour of assessee as relying on Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Delhi Versus M/s HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT] - ITA 20/1999 - - - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee submitted at the outset that question Nos.2 3 are covered in favour of the assessee. In so far as question No.2 is concerned, he placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd.: (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom.) where the Bombay High Court considered the question as to whether the net profit was required to be increased by an amount of Rs.3,46,370/- being the provision for bonus while considering computation under section 115J of the said Act. The Bombay High Court observed as under: - IV. Whether the net profit was required to be increased by an amount of Rs.3,46,370/- being the provision for bonus: The assessee has shown that it was liable to pay bonus under the Payment of Bonus A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ascertained liability. On the contrary, if he finds the provision for payment of bonus was not in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and it was merely an estimation then the original assessment of the assessing officer would hold. The question No.2 is answered accordingly. 4. In so far as question No.3 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee submitted that it was covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd.: (2008) 305 ITR 409 (SC). We find that this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is well founded particularly in respect of the year in question, that is, assessment year 1989-90. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
