Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1220 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - assessee had debited the rural bad debts against the Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts (PBDD) allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- When the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to bad debts written off relating to rural advances, the same cannot be applied for disallowing deduction claimed on account of write off of bad and doubtful debts relating to non-rural/ urban advances. As far as application of explanation to section 36(1)(vii) is concerned, we agree with the AR that its operation will be prospective and will not apply to the impugned AY. As careful reading of explanation to section 36(1)(vii) would indicate that nowhere it suggests that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) would apply in respect of bad debt written off relating to non-rural advances. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hold that assessee would be eligible to avail deduction of an amount representing actual write off in the books of account of bad debts relating to non-rural/urban advances in terms with section 36(1)(vii), as proviso to the said section would not apply to non-rural advances. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A). Applicability of sec.115JB - HELD THAT:- Following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Canara Bank [2022 (1) TMI 124 - ITAT BANGALORE] we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to his file for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. Addition made to book profit as per sec. 115JB - whether amount debited to Profit and Loss account under the head “Provision for funded interest term loan” and “Provision for others” are liable to be added to net profit u/s 115JB - Since the issue regarding applicability or otherwise of sec.115JB is restored to the file of Ld CIT(A), this issue is also restored to the file of Ld CIT(A) for examining it afresh. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- As held in the case of Vireet Investment [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] that only those investments, which has yielded dividend income should be considered for computing average value of investments. Before us, the Ld A.R also relied on certain decisions in order to contend that the provisions of sec.14A itself are not applicable to banks. Thus, we notice that various contentions are involved in this issue and hence we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of AO for examining it afresh. TDS u/s 194H - disallowance made u/s 40a(ia) - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in the assessee bank’s own case [2015 (3) TMI 1360 - ITAT BANGALORE], wherein the disallowance was deleted by this Tribunal by holding that the payment made by the assessee company could not be considered as commission/brokerage liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194H. CIT(A) has decided an identical issue in assessment year 2012-13 in the assessee bank’s own case itself in favour of the assessee bank and it was also upheld by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the above said disallowance. Disallowance of claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has rendered his decision on this issue following the decision rendered by co-ordinate bench of ITAT on an identical issue. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.
|