9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the CIT (A) was of the opinion that the assessee is also claiming its income as exempt income u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act upto 20.06.2007, therefore, the provision made as per RBI guidelines for BDDR attains no significance and it has to be treated as income being an excess provision in the year under consideration. As rightly pointed out by AR, the provision made under BDDR made out of earlier year s income which was offered to tax in the earlier year. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the Ld.A.R. when it was taxed in the earlier years, if the same is taxed in the current year it becomes double taxation. When it was taxed in the earlier year, the addition made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer, the said amount of excess BDDR is taxable income and in the absence of submissions, he proceeded to add the same to the income of the assessee. 4. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it was contended that during the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee used to make a provision of BDDR as per Reserve Bank of India (R.B.I) guidelines and also the income of the assessee exempt under Sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act upto the same assessment year i.e., 2006-07. For the year under consideration, the assessee passed a journal entry debiting BDDR balance and creating the NPA provision. According to the assessee, it was just a book entry without having any effect on the taxable income for the year under consideration. It was conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as it was made out of earlier years income which was already offered to taxation. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the opinion that the assessee is also claiming its income as exempt income u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act upto 20.06.2007, therefore, the provision made as per RBI guidelines for BDDR attains no significance and it has to be treated as income being an excess provision in the year under consideration. In our opinion, as rightly pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative, the provision made under BDDR made out of earlier year s income which was offered to tax in the earlier year. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the Ld.A.R. when it was taxed in the earlier years, if the same is taxed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
