TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was an actual write off effected in its books. Claim of Revenue that there was violation of Rule 46A, is without any basis, since assessee has not been given the benefit of provision under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. Hence, the question of bifurcation of activities becomes redundant. It is to be noted that the assessee is not in appeal before us against disallowance of its claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c). We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The appeals of the Revenue for all the three years stand dismissed - In the result, appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.1148 to 1150/Mds./2012 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2012 - SHRI ABRAHAM P.GE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim for provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act was disallowed. For these two Assessment Years, assessee moved in appeal before the CIT(A), who allowed the claim of the assessee for provision for bad and doubtful debts. Revenue moved in further appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 25.07.08 in ITA Nos.1411 to 1413/Mds./2005 remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for considering the claim of the assessee both with regard to bad debts written off as well as the provision for bad and doubtful debts. Accordingly for these two years, Assessing Officer took up the matter afresh. Almost simultaneously, the scrutiny proceedings for Assessment Year 2007-08 were also taken up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, pursuant to the Tribunal directions, he held it vice versa. In other words, he disallowed the claim for bad debts write off, whereas he allowed the claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. 5. Assessee moved in appeal before the CIT(A) against the disallowance of bad debts. As per assessee, the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(c) was a statutory claim based on percentage of advances. However, actual bad debts were claimed as write off and this had to be allowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. According to assessee, its main activity was providing industrial finance. Bad debts written off pertained to such activity i.e. providing industrial finance. It had also another acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no question of any double claim being allowed to the assessee. In any case, according to him the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No.1143 of 2011) dated 17.02.2012 went in favour of the assessee. 8. We have perused the orders of the authorities below and heard the rival contentions. Ld. CIT(A) has given a clear finding that assessee had claimed provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) on its activity relating to providing infrastructure facility. Ld. CIT(A) had held that such provision could not be allowed under section 36(1)(viia)(c) as deduction, since the activity was not relatable to providing loans or advances. However, according to him, to the exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
