9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to debtors depicted on assets side in balance sheet at close of year, the assessee - bank was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) and for that purpose, it was not necessary for it to close individual account of each of its debtors in its books. The learned DR at the time of the hearing has not pointed out any material fact suggesting that there is a change in the facts and circumstances for the year under consideration viz a viz the immediate preceding assessment year. Therefore, respectfully following the order above of this tribunal, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 14A - whether the disallowance u/s 14A read with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case, the ''Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the ''Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary. The 1st issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for the provision of bad debts amounting to ₹ 4,45,14,154.00 only. 2. The assessee has claimed provision for the bad debts amounting to ₹ 4,45,14,154.00 in the year under consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irly agree that the grievance raised by the Assessing Officer in the appeal is covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 (ITA No. 335/Ahd/2011; order dated 27.10.2016) wherein the co-ordinate bench has observed as follows:- 6, We find that so far deduction of actual bad debts written off, of ₹ 36,11,57,536/-, are concerned, it is not in dispute that amounts have actually been written off in the books of account of the assessee. The assessee has squared up the individual accounts to the debit of bad debts. In this view of the matter, and in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited vs. CIT (323 ITR 397) whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT (supra). The question which is proposed in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (supra). In the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that where assessee bank had written off impugned bad debt in its books by way of a debit to profit and loss account, simultaneously reducing corresponding amount from loans and advances to debtors depicted on assets side in balance sheet at close of year, the assessee - bank was entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) and for that purpose, it was not necessary for it to close individual account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 14A of the Act. 8. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown dividend income of ₹ 19,08,444.00 only which was claimed as exempt income under section 10(34) of the Act. The assessee against such exempted income has made the disallowance of ₹ 3,67,12,065.00 only. However, the AO was not satisfied with the disallowance made by the assessee as the same was not as per the provisions of rule 8D of Income Tax Rules. Therefore the AO worked out the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D for ₹ 39,75,57,172.00 and made the disallowance of the remaining amount for ₹ 36,08,45,107.00( 39,75,57,172.00-3,67,12,065.00) and added to the total income of the assessee. 9. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has declared dividend income of ₹ 22,697/- which was claimed as exempt from taxes u/s. 10(35) of the Act. The Ld.AO made an analysis of the expenditure required to be disallowed for earning this tax free income. He worked out the disallowance with the help of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Such disallowance has been worked out at ₹ 8,05,856/-. It is pertinent to observe that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on the issue in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt.Ltd. reported in (2014) 223 Taxman 0130 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 378 ITR 033 have concurred with each other that if there is no dividend income or tax free income in a year, then no disallowance U/S.14A ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
