|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1238 Records
-
2014 (5) TMI 1202
Deduction on account of interest paid to the third parties from the estimated income determined by applying the NP rate - HELD THAT:- As in the instant cases, the Tribunal while allowing the appeal has directed the Assessing Authority to re-compute the total income as estimated by him and allow relief on account of payment of interest and claim of depreciation. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is purely a finding of fact, based on proper appreciation of material on record and the evidence produced by the assessee. As no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find no fault with the order of the Tribunal declining to refer the question for our opinion.
Deduction on account of interest paid to the third parties is to be allowed to the assessee and modify the earlier order passed by the ITAT to this extent.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1201
Sanction of scheme of Amalgamation - HELD THAT:- The Official Liquidator sought information from the Petitioner Companies. Based on the information received, learned Official Liquidator has filed his report dated 15th April, 2014, wherein he has stated that he has not received any complaint against the proposed Scheme from any person/party interested in the Scheme in any manner and that the affairs of the Transferor Companies, which is subject matter of dissolution, do not appear to have been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of its members, creditors or to public interest as per 2nd proviso of Section 394(1) of the Act - In response to the notice issued in the Petition, learned Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs has filed his Affidavit/Report dated 22nd May, 2014. Relying on the Scheme of Amalgamation, he has stated that, upon sanction of the Scheme, all the employees of the Transferor Companies shall become the employees of the Transferee Company without any break or interruption in their services. Despite notice, the Income Tax Authorities have not raised any objection with regard to the scheme.
It is directed that in case it is found that the transferor companies has violated any provision of the Reserve Bank of India Act then the Directors of the Transferor Company guilty of breaching the applicable provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act shall continue to be liable irrespective of the sanction of the Scheme -
No issue with regard to the above issuance of shares on premium or transfer of funds by way of investment or granting of loan or advance is raised by the Income Tax Authorities. The Income Tax Authorities has further not raised any issue with regard to the share application money pending in the petitioner company. It is directed that the Income Tax Authorities shall be permitted to proceed against the Transferee Company in respect of any liability that may arise on account of sanction of the Scheme.
In view of the approval accorded by the Shareholders and Creditors of the Petitioner Companies; representation/reports filed by the Regional Director, Northern Region and the Official Liquidator, attached with this Court to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation, there appears to be no impediment to the grant of sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation. Consequently, sanction is hereby granted to the Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner Companies will comply with the statutory requirements in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1200
Deduction of TDS - disbursal of compensation for land acquired - agricultural land - whether the Government was justified in deducting tax at source while disbursing compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
HELD THAT:- This issue is not res integra and has been settled by this Court and more recently the issue has been examined in JAGMAL SINGH, SATBIR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [2013 (7) TMI 774 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that While any deduction made under TDS will not cause any serious prejudice even if the amount ought not to have been deducted by enabling a party applying for refund, if, it might involve a large number of cases, it shall be quite unnecessary for land owners to be directed to apply for income tax for refund in every case. Such a requirement is a needless circuitous exercise.
The matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid pronouncement. There would be no need to hear the State on the matter which has been already decided by this Court. Compensation for acquired land would not suffer Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) - petition allowed.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1199
Dishonor of cheque - Summon for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - petitioner submits that the cheque in question was not issued towards any debt or liability and the complainant had used stolen cheque - Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not required to be invoked to quash the proceedings arising out of the complaint in question - in view of the ground reality that this Court is being clogged by filing such petitions, it is the need of the hour to direct the petitioner to approach trial Court, so that such petitioners instead of straightaway rushing this Court ought to seek dropping of the proceedings by the trial court to ensure that summary trial in such like matters does not get unnecessarily delayed.
The petitioner is relegated to trial Court to urge all the pleas taken herein before learned trial Court at the time of hearing on notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. - Petition disposed off.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1198
CENVAT Credit - manufacture of white cement and white cement putty - input services - consultancy services received in respect of feasibility studies for cement plant at Oman - reverse charge mechanism - extended period of limitation - the Revenue has invoked the longer period of limitation by simplicitor observing that the appellant has not disclosed the nature of the service in respect of which credit was availed - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the returns filed by the appellant only shows the total amount of credit by which it cannot be inferred that credit of certain inadmissible input services was availed - there are no justification in the stand of the lower authorities.
Admittedly, the credit was duly reflected in the returns, which were filed with the Revenue. In the absence of any column in returns requiring the nature of the input or input services, the non-disclosure of the same cannot attribute any mala fide to the assessee.
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prolite Engineering Co. v. Union of India [1990 (3) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT] has observed that non-disclosure of information, which is not required to be disclosed or recorded by statutory provisions or prescribed proforma does not amount to suppression or concealment - By applying the ratio, the demand is held to be barred by limitation.
Demand of interest and penalty under Rule 76 - HELD THAT:- It stands observed by Commissioner (Appeals) that the notice proposed confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties by adopting the due date on the basis of the date of the invoices whereas the service tax liability was discharged on the basis of actual payment date, which is subsequent to the raising of the invoices. As such, he has held that the service tax liability for interest and imposition of penalties is not called for - Revenue in their memo of appeal have not disputed or rebutted the above finding of fact by Commissioner (Appeals) and have simplicitor, in a mechanical way, reiterated that interest and penalty are required to confirmed and imposed.
In the absence of any rebuttal to the finding that the tax was discharged within time by taking the actual payment date as the relevant date, there are no reasons to interfere in the said part of the impugned order.
Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1197
Claim of interest expenses u/s 57(iii) in the light of the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 54EC - assessee has sought to derive double benefit by claiming exemption u/s 54EC in respect of capital gains income and by simultaneously claiming deduction u/s 57(iii) in respect of the interest paid on loan which was taken to invest in 54EC bonds - HELD THAT:- We find that there is neither any dispute about the consideration for transfer of shares nor there is any dispute in respect to the fact that 15% amount of the sale consideration was held back by the purchaser and was disbursed only in subsequent years along with interest; and the assessee had offered it to tax too. Since capital gain is to be taxed on the accrual basis, in order, to meet the short fall (15% of balance sale consideration) the assessee had borrowed the loan and in the loan agreement with the bank it is specifically stated that loan taken was to be invested. We find that the loan was taken wholly and exclusively for the purchasing the Bonds.
Expenditure on account of interest on loans has been incurred for acquiring the interest yielding bonds, which clearly establishes the nexus between the income earned and the expenditure incurred. It has been rightly noted by the CIT(A) that the interest income earned/ accrued on such bonds has been offered for tax as income from other sources and the expenditure incurred for earning such income is allowable u/s 57(iii) and therefore there is clear link and nexus between interest earned and interest paid and therefore the assessee will be eligible for the deduction of interest out of the interest earned on such investment. Therefore we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), therefore we confirm the order passed by the CIT(A) and the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1196
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Modification of the order dated 06.12.2010 - grant of bail u/s 7/8/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120 B of IPC - HELD THAT:- The application dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1195
Classification of an item - mirror glass sheet - whether it is not "cosmetic mirror glass" but is "unclassified item"? - HELD THAT:- Appellant-Revenue could not dispute that mirror glass sheet by itself could not be used at all and it has to be further worked in respect of size etc. so as to used for any purpose whatsoever, therefore, by itself, it cannot be said to be a 'toilet requisite'.
There are no reason to defer from the view taken by Tribunal - revision dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1194
Charitable activities u/s 2(15) - exemption u/s 10(23C) - Whether receipt of royalty in lieu of IPR is charitable activity or not - Requirement of separate books of accounts - Registration of charitable institution u/s 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1193
Recognition u/s 80G(5) - relevance of object of a trust - stage of registration and for exemption under Section 80G - charitable activity u/s 2(15) - HELD THAT:- Stated object of the trust is required to be examined. Whether the funds are properly applied or not, can be examined by the Assessing Officer at the time of framing the assessment.”
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. O.P. Jindal Global University [2013 (5) TMI 364 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that at the time of granting approval for exemption u/s 80G, object of the trust is required to be examined and application of funds can be examined by Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1192
Jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 51 of FERA 1973 - HELD THAT:- This Court, upon perusal of the paper book, is prima facie of the view that as the impugned order is only a show cause notice and that too of the year 2003, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are given liberty to raise the issue of jurisdiction at the preliminary stage before the adjudicating authority itself.
The adjudicating authority is directed to decide the aforesaid preliminary issue. All rights and contentions of both the parties including the issue of delay and laches are left open.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1191
Exemption u/s 2(14) in respect of agriculture property transferred - any proof of conversion of agricultural land to non agricultural land - HELD THAT:- This property is the garden land and cultivable area and when it is cultivable area it is an agricultural land therefore, we are of the view that CIT(A) is justified in holding that the disputed property is agricultural land and it is liable to be exemption under section 2(14) of the Income tax Act on capital gain. We find that the assessee has sold agricultural land and this agricultural land is situated in village Panchayat and the same was not coming within 8 kms from notified Municipality. The form No. I & XIV shows that the land in question is agricultural land. The agricultural operation were carried in the property till the date it was sold and the several fruits bearing trees were existed in the said agricultural land for a number of years, thus, it is a garden land. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not liable to be a capital gain.
We find that the CIT has relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Debbie Alemao [2010 (9) TMI 560 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein as held that when land is shown by the Govt. as agricultural land and that land is never used as non agricultural land till it was sold. The assessee is not liable for capital gain. The Hon’ble High Court has further held that the land has to be treated as agricultural land even though no such agricultural income is shown by the assessee as the assessee stated that the agricultural income received on sale of coconuts grown on the land was just enough to maintain the land and there was no surplus
CIT(A) is justified in his action and our interference is not required. We also find from the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. Smt. K. Leelavathy [2012 (3) TMI 151 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein High Court has held that the land sold by the assessee retained its agricultural character till the date of the order permitting non agricultural use and could be treated as capital asset only thereafter. In the instant case there is no evidence on the record that this property in use is converted from agricultural land to non agricultural land moreover the Assessing Officer has not brought out any evidence before us. We find that the assessee was holding this land almost 20 years and the assessee was holding as owner of the property as agricultural land. Therefore, in our opinion, the CIT is justified and our interference is not required. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the finding of the CIT(A). In the result, department’s appeal is dismissed on this ground.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1190
Special provision for computing profits and gains of shipping business in the case of non-residents - section 44B applicability - TDS u/s 195 - Default u/s 201(1) - non deduction of tds on hire/time charter charges paid by the assessee to the non-resident entities being in the nature of royalty (equipment royalty taking ship as an equipment) - provisions of section 44B applicability - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the provisions of section 44B of the Act are applicable to the payments in question made by the assessee.
Default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) - as respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra [2009 (4) TMI 207 - ITAT BOMBAY-H] we hold that the orders passed by the A.O. u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act in the present case for all the three years under consideration treating SCIL as the assessee in default cannot be sustained as there are no assessments which have been made in the hands of the payees in respect of the amounts paid by the assessee and even the time period for issuing notices u/s 148 for making such assessments have already come to an end. We accordingly uphold the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1189
Valuation of shares - Approval of this Court to a special resolution passed by a majority of Cadbury India's shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting, for reduction of Cadbury India's share capital - Principles of Universal Application.
HELD THAT:- The only conclusion to be drawn is that there is no valid or tenable objection to the scheme. Given that the originally propounded valuation now stands eclipsed by the Court-ordered valuation, it is this valuation that will have to be taken into account. The valuation of ₹ 2,014.50/- per fully paid up equity share arrived at by the Court-appointed valuer E & Y in its second (supplementary) report dated 29th July 2011 is accepted. The petition is made absolute in these terms and on the basis of that valuation.
There will be no order as to costs.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1188
Classification of goods - flavoured milk - whether can be classified as soft drinks or not? - HELD THAT:- Circular dated 27.11.2002 to held that Badam Milk will remain to be milk and mere addition of some powder will not change its nature and that is how, concurrent findings has been recorded. The circular of Commissioner dated 27.11.2002 is binding upon department - revision dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1187
Jurisdiction of the Regulatory Commission - contention was raised primarily on the ground that there was an alternative remedy provided to the consumer to raise his grievances before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) established Under Section 42(5) of the Act - HELD THAT:- On a conjoint reading of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act along with the objectives and purpose for which Act 2003 is enacted, it becomes clear that there are two ways in which a consumer stated in a particular area can avail supply of electricity, as pointed out by the learned senior Counsel for TPC and noted above. When an application is made by a consumer to a distribution licensee for supply of electricity, such a distribution licensee for supply of electricity, such a distribution licensee can request other distribution licensee in the area to provide it network to make available for wheeling electricity to such consumers and this open access is to be given as per the provisions of Section 42(3) of the Act. It is here only that local authority is exempted from such an obligation and may refuse to provide makes it network available. Second option is, Under Section 43 of the Act, to provide the electricity to the consumer by the distribution licensee from its own network.
It is difficult to accept the extreme position taken by the Appellant that if local authority is a distribution licensee in a particular area, there cannot be any other distribution licensee in that area without the permission of such a local authority. Not only such a contention would negate the effect of universal supply obligation Under Section 43, it will also amount to providing an exception which is not there either in Section 43 or Section 14 of the Act namely to treat local authority in special category and by giving it the benefit even that benefit which is not specified under the Act.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1185
Permanent Establishment(PE) in India under the provisions of Article 5(2) (k) - scope of expressions “rendering” and “furnishing” - case of the assessee that it did not have any Permanent Establishment(PE) in India under the provisions of Article 5(2) (k) as it was “rendering” services in India, where as per Article 5(2)(k) of DTAA, it was necessary to “Furnish” services in India - HELD THAT:- Expressions “rendering” and “furnishing” are somewhat inter changeable in the normal course of business and it will be too pedantic hyper technical approach to narrow down the meaning of expression “furnishing” to exclude rendering of professional services and if the answer of this question is in yes then it was to be held that assessee did not have a P.E in India in terms of Article 5(2)(k) of India UK DTAA, and, accordingly, profits attributable to P.E were taxable under Article – 7 of India UK DTAA and this question was answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee.
As decided in own case [2010 (7) TMI 535 - ITAT, MUMBAI] the assessee did have a PE in India under article 5(2)(k) of the India-UK tax treaty, and, accordingly, profits attributable to the PE are taxable under article 7 of the India-UK tax treaty. - Decided against the assessee.
Profits attributable to P.E in India - computation provided by the appellant in the Income and Expenditure Account as being the income attributable to the permanent establishment - whether value of services rendered by the PE is to be taken at market value of such services in India and not the price at which permanent establishment should be taken? - gross income at £ 1,56,813, deduction for direct expenditure at £ 52.445, deduction for overheads £ 2,623 and net profit at £ 1,01,745 - HELD THAT:- The very plea of the assessee proceeds on fallacy that arm’s length price adjustment can be made in respect of the transactions with the clients of the assessee. The revenues earned by the assessee are to be taken at actual figures and no adjustments are permissible in the same. We reject this plea of the assessee as well. The action of the authorities below is confirmed on this count as well - Decided against the assessee.
Disallowance of disbursements to the extent of 25% of the disbursement claim proportionate to the fee relating to services rendered in India as compared to the total fees - permanent establishment in India under Article 5(2)(k) of the Tax Treaty between India and the U.K - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for the entire amount of the disbursements. AR was able to demonstrate that similar evidence which was furnished in respect of A.Y 1995-96 was also placed before AO during the course of assessment proceedings and on the basis of that evidence CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee on account of reimbursement of expenses. The decision relied upon by DR also does not support the case of the Revenue for restoration of the issue to the file of AO as in the present case reimbursement has been compensated directly and not through third party. In this view of the situation, we are of the opinion that the issue raised by the assessee in ground No.6 of this appeal and raised by the Revenue in Ground No.2 of its appeal are covered in favour of the assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1184
TP adjustment - transactions with the parent company - adjustment made by rejecting M/s KPIT Cummins as a comparable - also after excluding foreign exchange as a relevant factor for the purpose of determining arm's length price - M/s KPIT Cummins has not been accepted to be a comparable since the assessee had taken into consideration its 'rest of the world revenue' - HELD THAT:- Neither at the first nor at the second chance, the TPO ever gave a comprehensive show cause to the assessee before rejecting the comparable. The assessee's argument that in succeeding assessment years, the very entity as a comparable stands accepted; has also not been specifically denied by the Revenue. In addition to this, no distinction on facts of the impugned and succeeding assessment year is pointed out. It emanates that the TPO's and Assessing Officer's orders dated 28.10.2011 26.9.2012 respectively, are prior in point of time than the TPO's order dated 31.10.2012 and assessment order dated 26.3.2013 for succeeding assessment year. In these circumstances, the aforesaid documents are admitted as a part of record. In addition to this, the fact also remains that from proceedings of assessment year 2009-10, acceptance of M/s KPIT Cummins as a comparable is not forthcoming - interest of justice would be met in case the issue is remitted back to the TPO for afresh proceedings
Inclusion of foreign exchange as a relevant factor in computation of ALP in transfer pricing proceedings - TPO as well as the DRP in the present case are of the view that such a factor has to be excluded - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. FOUR SOFT LTD. HYDERABAD VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD. [2011 (9) TMI 634 - ITAT HYDERABAD] there is no justification for any adjustment to the price declared by the assessee, since the assessee's margin would fall within the arms length range. We therefore, hold that no adjustment is required to be made on the margin declared by the assessee for the international transaction of the AEs in relation to software development services - we direct the TPO to take into consideration foreign exchange factor in computing assessee's ALP. The question is accordingly decided against the Revenue.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1183
Assessment u/s 153A - additions over and above declared income u/s. 132(4) based on materials gathered during assessment and other seized materials - HELD THAT:- With regard to justification of retraction, the stand of the assessee has been manifold. AR has submitted that a mistake in the declaration during search was due to incorrect bank credit summation which is matter of record. According to the learned Authorized Representative in general, books prepared by the assessee have not been rejected by cogent reasoning.
The main emphasis of the assessee has been that agricultural activity and related income was bonafide one as a source of initial funds. The source of agricultural income ought to have considered the overall quantification of income. The addition has been made on the basis of search statement alone, which is not justified. According to AO, the disclosure promise during search u/s.132(4) has not been fulfilled. While, according to the CIT(A), self serving books are not admitted. The Assessing Officer’s verification of books, his findings, etc. are contrary to his finding of facts on the issue. In this background, the stand of the assessee has been that the Assessing Officer’s observation as regards the books of accounts, mistake of quantification of credits, summations, etc., are facts.
These observations ought to have not been brushed aside by the CIT(A). According to us, this approach is not justified. The authorities below should give finding on each and every point while reaching to its conclusion.
Return filed based on books of account and income declared was reflected based on cogent reasoning - The main objection of the Assessing Officer has been that there is long gap of 28 months for retracting by way of return while there was no threat or coercion during search - HELD THAT:- For A.Y. 2004-05, source of funds for Ghanawat land deal were claimed from agricultural income and gift from relatives. The Assessing Officer has observed that the agricultural income was not sufficient considering Ghanawat land deal, hence, the said argument was not accepted. While in appeal, the CIT(A) in para 13, page 22 observed that considering the lavish life style of assessee, the agricultural income of ₹ 1.95 lakhs was not sufficient to explain the source of land payment. In this background, the stand of the assessee has been that the amount payments recorded in books of accounts, agricultural income was bonafide and gifts have not been doubted, so the addition in question was not justified. Thus, the authorities below have taken contradictory stand while rejecting the stand of assessee. In fact, it should be analysed as per fact put forward by the assessee on the point and authorities below should have appreciated the fact before reaching any adverse opinion that too mainly based on admission of assessee.
For A.Y. 2005-06, the stand of the assessee has been that the books are made on the basis of bank statement primarily. The very same statement was used as basis for declaration during search. This mistake crept in assessment and appellate stage, which could not be cured. According to us, the facts on record should not have been ignored to justify addition mainly based on admission.
Regarding A.Y. 2007-08 CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting contentions of assessee while upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This aspect needs deep probe into the matter on the issue.
With regard to the other addition i.e. ₹ 32.50 lakhs received from Mr. Sonigra CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer on the point. The stand of the assessee has been that the assessee has not received any cash from Ravet land deal from Sonigra. However, the assessee was in receipt of ₹ 33 lakhs for another land deal at Shinde Wasti which ultimately did not materialize. The said fact clearly emerged from the statement of Sonigra. These arguments of assessee have not been met out by authorities below. According to us, it is not justified. To reach a proper conclusion, it needs deep probe into the matter. It is pertinent to mention here that the person from agricultural background is not able to understand and meet out economic complications with income tax angle in fast urbanization.
According to us, the books of accounts should be rejected only after rejecting the claim of assessee by cogent reasoning because the assessee’s contention revolves around bank statement found during the course of search. According to us, this whole issue should be looked into in the light of above discussion. So, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the whole issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same as per fact and law and after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1182
Addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Estimation of disallowance of 2% of gross dividend income as the expenditure, as being incidental to the earning of dividend income u/s. 14A of the Act as the assessee had not furnished the details of expenditure incidental to earning of dividend income, estimation was made of the expenditure attributable to dividend income at 2% of the gross dividend income. We estimate the expenditure incurred towards earning of exempt dividend income of ₹ 11,61,400/- at 2% of the gross dividend income which works out to ₹ 23, 228/-. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act.
Addition u/s. 36(1)(viia) - provisions for bad and doubtful debts - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts should be allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia), to the extent of provision made and available in the books of account, whether made in the current previous year or in the preceding previous years as we find that none of the lower authorities i.e. either AO or the CIT (Appeals) has examined the issue under consideration from this angle and as the entire facts are not available for us to adjudicate the issue, we, in the interest of substantial justice, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh as per law in the light of the discussions made hereinabove. Needless to mention that the AO shall allow reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the issue afresh.
........
|
9911796707
