Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 493 - ITAT BANGALOREAddition of Provision for doubtful debts and the provision for loss of assets required to be added back to the book profit as required under section 115JA - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) had followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd.(2008 (9) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT ) to hold that the provision made for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added back in computing book profits u/s 115J of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1999-2000 has only considered the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in (2011 (8) TMI 766 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) to come to the conclusion that the Explanation to sec.115J was not attracted to a provision made for bad and doubtful debts. We find that even in the present case, the facts need verification in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment year. Therefore we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for verification of the accounts and for re-computation. It is further observed that the ground raised by the revenue is that the assessee itself has added the said sum in its computation sheet. According to us this is not relevant as the assessee had added the said amount in the regular computation and not under the computation u/s 115JA of the Act - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Addition being ‘provision for exchange fluctuation’, while computing book profit - CIT(A) holding that the addition can be made only of the items provided for under the Explanations (a) to (f) to sec.115J of the Act and that the exchange fluctuation is not provided under the Explanation, held that the same cannot be added back - Held that:- The assessee had added the said amount in its computation sheet under the regular computation and not in the computation u/s 115J of the Act. We find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case applies to this ground also. Therefore, for the reasons given above, this issue also is set aside to the file of the AO for verification as directed the jurisdictional High Court. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Interest u/s 244A - Held that:- Section 244 refers to the liability fastened on the Central Government in case of failure to grant refund within the stipulated time in a case where refund is due to the assessee in pursuance of an order referred to in Section 240. A combined reading of both the provisions makes the position crystal clear that it is any amount which becomes due to the assessee and not necessarily the tax component.See Commissioner of Income Tax versus Goodyear India Limited, [2001 (2) TMI 114 - DELHI High Court]. Thus Assessee was entitled to interest in terms of Section 244 of the Act- Decided in favour of assessee.
|