2019 (3) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... RRY V. JAMES JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. Revenue is in appeal raising questions of law, which are re-framed as follows: I) Whether the bad debts written off, for nonrural branches claimed under clause (vii) of Section 36(1) has to be allowed only in excess of the provision made for rural branches under clause (viia) of Section 36(1) ? II) In determining the provision for bad debts under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd deduction allowed, for non-rural branches. We make it clear that in making the computation, there can be no consideration of the provision for bad debts for rural branches as granted under clause (viia) of Section 36(1). Hence, the first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 3. On the second question, the issue stands covered in favour of the Revenue and again .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 36(1). A similar contention was raised in assessee's own case in a batch of cases decided on 11.12.2018 in I.T.A.No.533/2009 and connected cases. We have found that such a question does not arise in the Revenue's appeal. The assessee had also not taken up such a contention before any of the authorities. In such circumstances, the assessee cannot be permitted to take that contention at this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X