9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t:- We are of the view that addition sustained deserves to be deleted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] held that deletion of the second proviso below Sec.43-B of the Act w.e.f. 0-1-4-2004 was clarificatory in nature and therefore will have to be applied retrospectively. Admittedly the payment of employer's contribution had been made by the Assessee on or before the due date for filing return of income. Therefore the payment made on or before the due date for filing return of income has to be allowed as deduction as per the first proviso to Sec.43B of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision, we direct that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. - Decided i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r bank and is governed by the Banking Companies (A T) Act 1970, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and various rules and regulations made by RBI from time to time. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assesee had claimed deduction of a sum of ₹ 1,39,39,304/-. The assessee explained that the aforesaid sum represents interest due on non performing assets. The assessee also pointed out that the aforesaid interest relates to the previous year relevant to A.Y.1999-2000. The assessee explained though the aforesaid interest ought not to have been treated as income of the A.Y.1999-2000 was offered to tax in that year. In the present A.Y. the aforesaid interest income which cannot be realized by the assessee as the debt i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not allowed as per section 29 of' the Income Tax Act., Therefore, a wrong accounting entry in respect of the. income in earlier years cannot be claimed as deduction as .expenditure in the later years when such entry is reversed in the Accounts. Accordingly this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has raised the aforesaid grounds before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the Prudential norms of the Reserve bank of India applicable and also placed reliance on certain judicial pronouncements rendered on identical facts. The first decision was that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Industrial Finance Corporation of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the same from the interest income for the assessment year 2006-07. The same was disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 60. The assessee submits that these issue is covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Industrial Finance Corporation reported in 201 Taxmann 75 =. In that case also the assessee reversed the income offered to it for tax in the earlier years on the ground that accounts are become NPAs. The assessee has also raised additional ground, which is as follows: 1. Without prejudice to Ground No.7 the learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the unrealized interest of ₹ 236,00,000/- on Non-Performing Assets as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act by treating the same as bad debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n referred to above we hold that the claim of the assessee for deduction should be allowed. 10. Ground no.2 raised by the assessee reads as follows :- 2.0 That the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 1 ,88,27,903/- out of the contribution to the recognized provident fund. 11. P.F. Contribution made after due date : It appears from Annexure-H of Tax Audit Report that the assessee during the F.Y. 1999-00 relevant to the assessment year 2000-01 made a deposit of ₹ 1,88,27,903/- towards contribution of PF by the employer after due date as prescribed in Sec.43B of the I.T.Act. On specific query vide this office letter dated 13.11.2002, the assessee admitted the fact as per submission dated 5.12.2002. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
