TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsider the higher claim u/s 44C and not to restrict himself to the claim made in original return - no absurdity in the direction of CIT(A) to AO to consider deduction u/s 44C on the basis of revised return subject to verification of the correctness of the revised return. Therefore, upholding the impugned order on this issue except for the removal of the last sentence from para 6.1., which is contrary to his conclusion on the point - the assessee's ground is accepted to the extent of the removal of the last sentence. Disallowance u/s 43B - employer's contribution to provident fund not paid before the due date under the EPF Act - CIT(A) sustained the disallowance accordingly - Held that:- No disallowance can be made if the employer's contribution or the employees' contribution is paid before the due date of filing return of income as per sec 139(1) as decided in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT ] read along with CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT]- in favour of assessee. Deduction on account of bad debt written off - disallowance as the assessee could not prove that the amount had become bad in the year - Held that:- As decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ches, nor there can be deduction for interest expenditure paid by the Indian branch to Head office or the other overseas branches. We want to make it clear that we have adopted the ratio of special bench decision in so far it concerns the examination under the provisions of the Act and not the DTAA. It is different matter that the decision of the special bench rendered in this case in the context of the DTAA has been reconsidered by a larger bench, with which we are not presently concerned. Respectfully following the ratio of this decision in the context of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we hold that the interest income of Rs. 5.61crore which has resulted only from the assessee's dealings with its Head office cannot be charged to tax on the principle of mutuality. Accordingly no tax can be levied on the interest earned by the assessee from its Head office or overseas branches. At the same time we want to make it clear that the principle of mutuality will extend equally in respect of interest paid by the assessee to its head office or other overseas branches. The assessee cannot claim deduction in respect of interest paid to its head office and overseas branches. The Assessing Officer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the deduction u/s 44C in the original return at Rs. 19,24,206. The learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer "to consider the deduction u/s 44C on the basis of revised return filed u/s 139(5) of the I.T. Act subject to verification of the correctness of revised return filed within time. Appellant's appeal on this ground is partly allowed". 6. Now the grievance of the assessee is that the direction given by the learned CIT(A) is correct in principle but the last line being "Appellant's appeal on this ground is partly allowed" is unwarranted. On the other hand, the department is against the direction given by the CIT(A) in principle about the allowability of expenses. It is obvious that when the assessee revised its return and claimed deduction u/s 44C at higher level than that claimed in the original return, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to consider the higher claim u/s 44C and not to restrict himself to the claim made in original return. We fail to find any absurdity in the direction of the learned CIT(A) to the AO to consider deduction u/s 44C on the basis of revised return subject to verification of the correctness of the revised return. When the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that the said amount of bad debt was claimed as deduction by the assessee in its annual accounts. It is not the case of the Revenue that the conditions of section 36(2) are not complied with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 has held that after 01.04.1989 the assessee is not required to prove that the debt has become bad in the previous year u/s 36(1)(vii) and deduction is allowable on a simple write off. It is observed that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in assessee's own case in DIT (International taxation) v. Oman International Bank SAOG [2009] 313 ITR 128 has held that the deduction of bad debt is allowable on a simple write off and it is not for the assessee to prove that the debt had become bad. In view of the ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we find that the view taken by the learned CIT(A) on this issue is without exception. This ground is not allowed. 11. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed. Assessment Year 2001-2002 12. First ground of the assessee's appeal is against the taxability of interest income of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
