9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in securities of Central and State Governments, we do not find any reason to uphold the stand of the income-tax authorities that such investments are not in the course of assessee s business. In fact, there is an apparent contradiction in the stand of the assessing authority inasmuch as the interest yielded by such investments is assessed as business income whereas the interest expenditure attributable to such investments has been sought to be treated as a non-business expenditure. Considering the aforesaid, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the order of CIT(A) on this aspect and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim made by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. Correct head of income - Profit on sale of shares of joint stock companies - Business income or capital gain - HELD THAT:- Relying on assessee s own case [ 2019 (6) TMI 1123 - ITAT MUMBAI] we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the profit on sale of investment as capital gains. Thus, assessee succeeds on this ground. Exemption under Section 10(23G) of the Act in respect of income from infrastructure business - HELD THAT:- Relying on assessee s own case [ 2019 (6) TMI 1123 - ITAT MUMB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance under Section 80M of the Act to 1% of the dividend income. Thus, assessee succeeds on this ground of appeal as stated above. Disallowance of claim of bad debt by AO u/s 36(1)(vii) - as per AO said debt has not become bad and accordingly, he added the same to the income of assessee - HELD THAT:- Appellant s claim of bad debt was as per provisions of the Act, since the appellant was in the business of money lending. The appellant explained the circumstances for which the debts became unrecoverable and the debts were actually written off in the books of accounts. Moreover, whenever such written off debts were realized in future, the same were offered as income u/s. 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the A.O was not justified in disallowing appellant s claim. Case followed TRF. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [ 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT]. MAT applicability u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee is a banking company the provisions of section 115JB was not applicable to a banking company, hence no income is assessable u/s.115JB. Interest paid u/s 201(1A) on TDS on payment by assessee - HELD THAT:- Perusing the material on record, we find that the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition and assessee succeeds on this ground of appeal. - ITA No. 3371/Mum/2004, ITA No. 3372/Mum/2004, ITA No. 3373/Mum/2004, ITA No. 4744/Mum/2005, ITA No. 5962/Mum/2008, ITA No. 3907/Mum/2009, ITA No. 3908/Mum/2009, ITA No. 3909/Mum/2009, ITA No. 2488/Mum/2010, ITA No. 13/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2020 - ITA No. 1105/Mum/2012, ITA No. 2290/Mum/2014, ITA No. 5500/Mum/2014, ITA No. 5591/Mum/2008, ITA No. 3759/Mum/2009, ITA No. 3760/Mum/2009, ITA No. 3761/Mum/2009, ITA No. 2612/Mum/2010 And ITA No. 29/Mum/2011 Sri Mahavir Singh, JM And Sri Rajesh Kumar, AM For the Appellant : Shri Satish Mody, AR For the Respondent : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT DR ORDER PER BENCH: These cross appeals of assessee are arising out of the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, LTU, 24, Mumbai in appeals No. CIT(A)-XII/AC(3)(1)/IT-21/00-01 dated 25.02.2004, CIT(A)XII/AC(3)(1)/IT-26/02-03 dated 25.02.2004, CIT(A) XII/DC(3)(1)/IT- 19/02-03 dated 25.02.2004, CIT(A)XXVII/DC 3(1)/IT-86/03-04 dated 24.03.2005, CIT(A)XXVIII/ACIT 3(1)/IT 32/07-08 dated 19.06.2008, CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld AR, however relied on the orders of authorities below. 4. We have considered the contentions of both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. We note that similar issue has been adjudicated by the coordinate bench in ITA No.3626/Mum/2001 Assessment year 1997-98 vide order dated 21.06.2019, the operative part whereof is reproduced as under: 5. In this background, we have heard the rival stands, perused the relevant material and proceed to dispose of the issue in the following manner. As briefly noted by us earlier, the appellant is a public financial institution which is, inter-alia, engaged in the activity of providing finance including leasing also. In pursuance to such objects, the assessee had leased out assets to various entities and claimed depreciation on the value of such assets leased out. So far as the terms and conditions of the lease are concerned, both the lower authorities have converged that the same are on similar terms and conditions as was in the past years. In fact, there is a convergence between the two sides to the effect that the facts and circumstances of the dispute stand on an identical footing as was considered by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of depreciation of ₹ 2,09,04,638/- pertaining to the aforesaid seven lease arrangements in the light of decision in the earlier years following the order of Tribunal dated 29.10.2014 (supra). Needless to mention, on this aspect the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter recompute the depreciation allowable to the assessee keeping in mind the directions of the Tribunal in the earlier years, and as per law. 8. Accordingly, insofar as Ground of appeal nos. 1.1 to 1.3 are concerned, the same are allowed to the above extent. 5. Since the facts of the issue in the present case are identical to one as decided by the coordinate bench of the tribunal as discussed above, we, therefore, respectfully following the same set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground raised by the assessee. Resultantly the ground raised by the assessee in all the above assessment years is allowed. The AO is directed accordingly. 6. The next common issue in these cross appeals being ITA Nos. 3371, 3372, 3373/Mum/2004, 4744/Mum/2005 and 5962/Mum/2008 filed by the assessee for AYs 1998-99 to 2002-03 respectively and I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assesssee as per section 9 of IDBI Act 1964, therefore, the entire expenditure is allowable as business expenditure. 8. The ld Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue raised by the assessee as well as by the revenue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee s own case in ITA No. 3626/Mum/2001 Assessment year 1997-98 vide order dated 21.6.2019 and, therefore, the ground raised by the assessee may kindly be allowed and that of the revenue may be dismissed. The ld. DR fairly agreed to the contentions of the assessee but relied on the grounds of appeals by the revenue. 9. We have considered the contentions of both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. We note that similar ground of appeal was raised by the assessee in ITA No. 3626/Mum/2001 Assessment year 1997-98 assessment year 1997-98 which was decided in favour of the assessee. The operative paras are reproduced as under:- 11. In this background, we have heard the rival submissions. At the time of hearing, apart from canvassing that the utilisation of funds by the assessee for acquiring the securities of Central and State Government as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any State Financial Corporation or any other financial institution which may be approved by the Board in this behalf by way of refinance of any loans or advances granted to industrial concerns by such Corporation or institution which are repayable within a period not exceeding twenty-five years; 1[which may be approved by the Board in this behalf] by way of refinance of any loans or advances granted to industrial concerns by such Corporation or institution which are repayable within a period not exceeding twenty-five years, (ii) any scheduled bank or State Co-operative Bank, by way of refinance of any loans or advances granted to industrial concerns by such bank which are repayable within a period not exceeding fifteen years; by such bank which are repayable 4[within a period not exceeding fifteen years; (iii) any scheduled bank or State Co-operative Bank or the Industrial Finance Corporation or any State Financial Corporation or any other financial institution which may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf, by way of refinance of any loans or advances granted to industrial concerns or group of industrial concerns by such bank or institution which are for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts are sought to be converted into stocks or shares. (da) granting loan and advances- (i) to any person exporting products of industrial concerns; or (ii) to any person outside India, in connection with the export of capital goods from India; or (iii) for the execution of turn-key projects outside India by any industrial concern or by any person in India; (db) transferring for consideration any instrument relating to loans and advances granted by it to industrial concerns; (dc) granting loans and advances to any person for purposes of investment in any industrial concern;] (e) guaranteeing deferred payments due from any industrial concern; (f) guaranteeing- (i) loans raised by industrial concerns which are floated in the public market; and (ii) loans raised by industrial concerns from any scheduled bank or State Co-operative Bank or the Industrial Finance Corporation or any State Financial Corporation or any other financial institution which may be approved by the Board in this behalf; which may be approved by the Board in this behalf; (g) guaranteeing the obligations of any scheduled bank or State Co-operative Bank or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uties under this Act or any other law for the time being in force including sale or transfer of any of its assets. (2) The Development Bank may receive in consideration of any of the services mentioned in sub-section (1) such commission, brokerage, interest, remuneration or fees as may be agreed upon. (3) The Development Bank shall not grant any loan or advance or other financial accommodation on the security of its own bonds or debentures. 13. Shorn of other details, so far as is relevant for our purpose, a perusal of the aforesaid sub section (1) of section 9 of the IDBI Act, 1964 shows that granting of loans and advances, financing of or refinancing of State Financial Corporations is one of the primary objects of the assessee, as mandated by the Parliament. Therefore, on this very count itself, we are unable to subscribe to the stand of the income- tax authorities that the investments made for financing or refinancing of State Financial Corporations is not an activity undertaken in the course of assessee s business; in our view the interest expenditure relatable to such investments cannot be disallowed in terms of Sec. 36(1)(iii) of the Act having regard to the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and circumstances during the assessment years under consideration are identical to that in assessment year 1997-98, we, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee s own case as discussed above, allow the ground raised by the assessee in all the above assessment years and dismiss the ground raised the revenue s appeals. The AO is directed accordingly. 11. The next common issue in these appeals of assessee in ITA Nos. 3371, 3372, 3373/Mum/2004, 4744/Mum/2005 and 5962/Mum/2008 for AYs 1998-99 to 2002-03 respectively is against the order of CIT(A) holding that profit on sale of shares of joint stock companies is business income of assessee. Assessee has raised identical grounds in its appeals except for the quantum. Hence, we will take the facts from AY 2002-03 and will decide the issue. The Grounds raised by assessee in AY 2002-03 is as under: - 3. Investment in Shares : 3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in treating income by way of capital gains on sale of shares as business income the assessee holding that appellant s investments in shares of joint stock companies should be treated as business assets and not capital assets o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al gains. Thus, assessee succeeds on this ground in all the above mentioned assessment years. 14. The next common issue in these appeals of assessee in ITA Nos. 3371, 3372, 3373/Mum/2004 for AYs 1998-99 to 2000-01 respectively is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer restricting the exemption under Section 10(23G) of the Act in respect of income from infrastructure business. Assessee has raised identical grounds in its appeals except for the quantum. Hence, we will take the facts from AY 2000-01 and will decide the issue. The Grounds raised by assessee in AY 2000-01 is as under: - 4. Exemption u/s 10(23G) of the Income Tax Act The learned CIT(A) committed an error of fact in relying on the observation made by the CIT(A) in AY 1997-98, that the ground was not pressed .. . He ought to have decided the issue on merits. The learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the claim u/s 10(23G) on gross basis as claimed in the grounds of appeal. 15. After hearing the rival contentions, we observe that the issue is fully covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in Assessment year 1997-98, the operative part whereof is extracted as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 7.3, we hold that proportionate disallowance of interest of ₹ 22.25 crores made by ld. CIT(A) is not justified as the assessee's own I.T.A. No.4475/Mum/2007 12 and 7 other appeals funds are far in excess than the interest free advance given by assessee and the investment made, which is giving exempt interest income to the assessee. 28 The co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in ADIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez (supra) also held that it is an undisputed proposition that exemption under section 10(15) on the gross interest and not on net interest. The co-ordinate bench followed the decision Dresdner Bank Ag (supra) and JCIT vs. American Express Bank Ltd. (24 taxmann.com 50 (Mum. Trib.). Considering the decision of co-ordinate bench of Tribunal, we direct the A.O. to allow the deduction on gross basis, ofcource after deducting the direct expenses attributable to earning such income. In the result, the assessee also succeeded on this ground. 16. As the facts and circumstances during these assessment years under consideration are identical to those as in assessment year 1997- 98, we, therefore, respectfully following the decision of our co-ordinate bench in the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income of the assessee. 19. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering the contentions raised by the assessee in the appellate proceedings by observing and holding that in Assessment year 1995-96 the said expenses were held to be not allowable and accordingly, the disallowance was upheld during the year also. 20. The ld AR vehemently argued before us that the authorities below had not appreciated the facts in the correct perspective as the assessee has written back in the computation of income, the contribution to various funds aggregating to ₹ 1,78,72,827/-. The ld. AR submitted that the actual expenses incurred during the year were claimed under Section 37(1) of the Act. The ld. AR also argued that the CIT(A) has mechanically followed the order of his predecessor in assessment year 1995-96 wherein similar expenses were disallowed without application of mind. The ld. AR contended before the Bench that any expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the welfare of employees or by way of contribution to the fund for promotion of welfare is allowable expenditure as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s after the employer claimed benefit of deduction thereof. In plain terms, this provision was not meant to hit genuine expenditure by an employer for the welfare and the benefit of the employees. 9. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, (2001) 252 ITR 43, Division Bench of this Court considered a similar issue when the assessee had claim deduction of contribution towards staff sports and welfare expenses. The revenue opposed the claim on the ground that the same was hit by section 40A(9) of the Act. The High Court allowed the assessee s appeal making following observations :- For the aforestated assessment year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹ 2,60,283 under section 40A(9) paid by the assessee for staff welfare activities. The assessee claimed that the entire amount was for staff welfare activity. That, the said amount was a grant for staff welfare activity and that the entire amount was for the benefit of the employees and, therefore, the assessee claimed deduction as business expenditure under section 28. However, the Department rejected the assessee s claim on the ground that a club known as Trombay Club was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools where the students of the assessee-Indian Oil Corporation would receive education. This Court referred to a judgment of Kerala High Court in case of P.Balakrishnan, Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs.Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd., 243 ITR 284 and of the decision of this Court in case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) held that the Tribunal had correctly allowed the assessee s claim of expenditure. In view of this discussion, this question is not entertained. We, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure. Thus, assessee succeeds on this issue in all the assessment years as stated above and ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 23. The next common issue in these appeals of assessee in ITA Nos. 3371, 3372, 3373/Mum/2004, 4744/Mum/2005 and 5962/Mum/2008 for AYs 1998-99 to 2002-03 respectively is against the order of CIT(A) holding that it is only the net dividend which is to be exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act. Similarly the assessee has raised identical grounds in its appeals except for the quantum. Hence, we will tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of interest attributable to the dividend income. The Assessing Officer no where find any direct nexus that borrowed fund, investment in shares giving rise to dividend income. The assessee is engaged in a finance business where the finances cannot be linked with the investment in shares therefore decision of Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Warehousing Corporation (242 ITR 450 SC) which follows earlier decision of S.C. therefore interest cannot be attributed against the dividend income. 5.7 The contention of the appellant cannot be accepted as the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in its recent decision in the Asst. C.I.T. vs City Corp. Finance 300 ITR 398 have held that expenses connected with exempt income can be disallowed. Therefore action of the Assessing Officer is justified and confirmed. 26. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that in this case clearly the assessee s own funds are far more than the investments in shares and securities and, therefore, it can be presumed that the investments in shares and securities is made out of own and interest free funds available with the assessee. The case of assessee is squarel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the previous year in which it was created by the public financial institution or bank or other institution as specified in the section when the same was credited in the Profit Loss Account for the year or in which it was actually received by the institution, whichever is earlier. The assessee did not offer to tax the said amount on the ground that on accrual basis this was offered to tax in the earlier years when it accrued and, therefore, not liable to tax in the current year. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee never credited the interest on NPAs to Profit Loss Account, but credited the same to the interest suspense account. The ld. AR noted that since assessee was brought under the tax net w.e.f. 1992-93 onwards, assessee never suffered any tax on accrual basis. According to the Assessing Officer, provisions of Section 43D of the Act are very clear and as the interest in relation to bad and doubtful debts/sticky loans is to be taxed in the year in which it is credited to the Profit Loss Account or at the time of actual receipt, whichever is earlier, he added the same to the income of assessee. 29. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atute book by the Finance Act, 1991 and prior thereto, the interest on sticky loans was not to be offered to tax. Thereafter, specific provision was created by bringing this section in the statute that interest on sticky loans shall be taxed in the year in which it is credited in the Profit Loss Account or in the year of realization of interest, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the dispute before us is whether the amount recovered by the assessee during the year out of sticky loans belonging to earlier years is liable to tax in the current year or not. After perusing the facts on record and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore (supra), it has been held that where income has accrued in earlier year, the same income cannot be taxed twice; first in the year of accrual and thereafter on receipt basis. In the present case, income has accrued in earlier year and, according to the assessee, since assessee was not liable for taxation in the earlier years, therefore, it was not offered to tax. Undisputedly, income has accrued in the earlier years and since the provisions of Section 43D of the Act does not have any retrospective application, hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded his finding in the following manner: 109. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the A.O.s decision and computation of deduction u/s. 80M is not clear. In the computation of income, on p.77, he has shown the deduction u/s. 80M to be ₹ 79,84,44,45/-, as per Annexure A . In the Annexure A , he has computed the deduction u/s.80M at ₹ 79,84,44,450/-. On the other hand, at page 75 of the assessment order, he states that the claim of deduction u/s. 80M of ₹ 82,73,23,090/- is withdrawn . In view of this, the A.O. is directed to pass a clear, speaking order on the appellant s claim of deduction u/s. 80M. While doing so, he should keep note of, and give effect to, my directions relating to the appellant s claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii). 20. We have noted that on similar disallowances in appeal for A.Y. 1995-96 in ITA No. 3369/M/2004, the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal by following the decision in assessee s own case for A.Y. 1992-93 in ITA No. 3249/Bom/1995 dated 24.12.2002, restricted the disallowances to 1% of dividend income. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Tribunal, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinary course of money lending business. The non recoveries include principal as well as interest there on. Though the interest component was duly considered in earlier years as income and therefore qualifies to be claimed as bad debts, but the principal amount also qualifies to be claimed as bad debts, since the appellant was in the business of money lending. Alternatively the component of principal amount was also allowable as business loss as held by Mumbai ITAT in the cases reported in (2008) 26 SOT 431 and (2008) 26 SOT 462. The Special Bench of Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Gujarat Gas Financial Services reported in (2008) 14 DTR 481 also held that such amount are allowable as bad debts. In view of this legal position, the appellant correctly claimed the unrecoverable loans and advances as bad debts in the return of income. 8.3(b) The second question is as to whether the bad debt claimed by the appellant were allowable or not. The deduction of bad debt is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. There was a fundamental change in the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. 1.4.89. Prior to amendment, the assesses was required to establish firstly that the unrecovered amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws that the amounts were written off as bad debts and were also actually debited to P L account. Thus, the appellant fulfilled the condition of writing off the bad debts in the books of accounts. However, the A.O in each case has mentioned in stereotype manner that appellant did not show that the debt were written off in the accounts of appellant and no ledger accounts of the parties were furnished. During appellate proceedings also, the appellant has vehemently argued that the bad debt claimed wore duly written off in the books of accounts and concerned ledger accounts of the parties. The courts and benches of ITAT have held that when the amount is debited to P L account and corresponding credit entry is made in concerned ledger account, the condition of writing off is fulfilled. The Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in case of Oman International Bank 100 ITD 285 has held that amendment made w.e.f. 01.4.89 has liberalized the requirement of claiming deduction of bad debt by altogether doing away with the condition precedent of satisfaction of A.O that the debt has become bad. The Amended provision provide that a claim of bad debt is to be allowed in the year in which such bad debt has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11 is against the order of CIT(A) holding that provisions of MAT are applicable to the assessee. 39. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that assessee s case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of coordinate bench in assessment year 2004-05 and, therefore, prayed the Bench that the appeal may kindly be decided in favour of assessee by setting aside the order of authorities below. The ld. DR, on the other hand, fairly conceded that the issue is covered in favour of assessee, however, relied on the order of the authorities below. 40. We have considered the contentions of both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. We note that similar ground of appeal was raised by the assessee in assessment year 2004-05 wherein the Tribunal has held as under :- 5. Now coming to the merits. Since the assessee is a banking company the provisions of section 115JB was not applicable to a banking company, hence no income is assessable u/s.115JB. The said section has been extended to other assessee s like banks, insurance companies, etc. also as per the amendment made by Finance Act, 2012. In the following cases, it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is not allowable under the Act. I find that section 40(a)(ii) which deals with the matter covers any tax paid on profits and gains of business or profession of the assessee. This interest for delayed remittance of TDS not being so and besides not being in the nature of penalty it should not have been disallowed. 11.3 The appeal on this ground is allowed. 45. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of assessee following the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2009) 183 Taxman 186 wherein it has been treated as in the nature of interest and hence admissible. However, we find that the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. vs CIT, 196 ITR 406 (Bom) has decided the issue against the assessee. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. (supra), reverse the order of CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is allowed. 46. The next ground in the appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s created by the appellant as the Assessing Officer has committed mistake in this regard. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the order of CIT(A) and hence, appeal of Revenue on this ground is dismissed. 50. The assessee in ITA No. 1105/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2008-09 has by way of an additional ground prayed for direction to the Assessing Officer to grant deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to the assessee. The assessee has also filed an application dated 03.08.2013 for admitting the additional ground of appeal which is reproduced as under:- i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer may be directed to grant eligible deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act to the appellant. 51. Facts in brief are that assessee has filed additional ground praying before the Bench to issue directions to the Assessing Officer to grant deduction to assessee under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs CIT, Thrissur, 343 ITR 270 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
