9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 82,035/- without appreciating the fact that such expenses have not resulted in promotion of the assessee s business. 3. We find that in assessee s own case in ITA No. 294/M/97 for A.Y. 1992-93 in which it has been held as follows: We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record. In the case of Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd., the Jurisdictional High Court has held that membership of a club would provide officers of the assessee company better contact with persons in good position and would result in publicity. Therefore, membership fees paid to the club is an allowable expenditure. Following the said decision, we allow the claim of the assessee and delete the disallowance Respectful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputing the income of the previous year in which it is written off or in earlier years. It was claimed that the AO has disallowed an amount of ₹ 4,64,18,480-/- claimed by the AO has disallowed an amount of ₹ 4,64,18,480/- claimed by the assessee. The assessee could not produce evidence which could show or establish that the debts have indeed become bad during the relevant financial year. The appellant claimed during the course of appellant proceedings that the AO required the appellant to substantiate the claim of the bad debts and liquidate damages and in response thereto, the appellant duly submitted the detailed breakup thereof alongwith reasons for writing off bad debts and liquidated damages as also its detailed contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t because the appellant did not submit any documentary evidence to show that the debts have become bad. In this respect, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Girish Bhagwat Prasad 152 CTR 199 held that under the provisions of S. 36(1)(vii) as in force from 1st April, 1989, all that the assessee had to show was that the bad debt was ritten off as irrecoverable. The genuineness of such a claim made by the assessee was not in doubt. Therefore, all that the Tribunal has done is to uphold the first appellate authority s decision applying the provisions of amended s. 36(1)(vii) and no question of law arises in the matter from such application of the provision to the facts of the case. Moreover, the intention of the legislature in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich it was written off by the assessee. These clauses have become redundant, as the bad debts are now being straightaway allowed in the year of write-off. The Amending Act, 1987 has therefore, amended these clauses to withdraw them after the A.Y. 1988-89. From the above excerpts of the Circular of the CBDT, it is clear that the above said amendment the requirement to establish that the debt has become bad during the relevant financial year (which was there prior to the said amendment) has been done away with and the claim is allowable in the year in which the debt is actually written off as irrecoverable. The appellant also relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Anil S. Rastogi 86 ITD 193 wherein t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that 90% of gross hirer charges are required to be excluded while calculating deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. 10. This ground has been wrongly raised and does not arise in this year therefore it is dismissed as infructuous. 11. The last ground raised by the Revenue reads as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in laws, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO not to exclude discount receipt, balances, written back and provisions written back while computing deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. 12. With respect to balances written back, the Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the same is with respect to revenue expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
