TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit as income of the appellant ?” – The first and second questions of law are inter-related to each other. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that the issue involved in these questions of law is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of T. N. Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2008 - TMI - 9396 - MADRAS High Court] against the assessee. - In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this court has held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction in view of the Explanation to section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act which says that the provision for bad and doubtful debt made in the accounts of the assessee is not an allowable deduction. Likewise, the third que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the amount of Rs. 36,47,585 collected as contingent deposit as income of the appellant ?" 2. The facts of the case as culled out from the grounds of appeal are as follows : 3. The appellant-company is engaged in the business of hire purchase financing, equipment leasing and allied activities. For the assessment year 1998-99, the appellant filed a return of income on November 30, 1998, declaring a total income of Rs. 50,38,16,950. The regular assessment under section143(3) was completed on March 30, 2001, determining the total income at Rs. 79,16,75,880. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for provision for non-performing assets and conting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Act which says that the provision for bad and doubtful debt made in the accounts of the assessee is not an allowable deduction. Likewise, the third question of law is also covered by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Sakthi Finance Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 83 (Mad), wherein it was held that as long as the receipt of the amount by the assessee was clearly associated with liability to refund the amount, such receipt of the amount would not be characterised as an income and, therefore; the same cannot be taxed vide K. C. P. Limited v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 421 (SC) and CIT v. Southern Explosives Co. [2000] 242 ITR 107 (Mad). Thus, the third question of law is also covered by the decisions against the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
