TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, ITA No. 1708/Mum/2005 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2012 - J. Sudhakar Reddy (Accountant Member) And R. S. Padvekar (Judicial Member) For the Petitioner : Sanjiv Dutt For the Respondent : Nitesh Joshi ORDER J. Sudhakar Reddy (Accountant Member) These cross appeals are directed against impugned order dated 25th November 2004, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXIII, Mumbai, for assessment years 2001-02. We first take up Revenue s appeal in ITA no.1073/Mum./2005. 2. Ground no.1, is against the disallowance of expenditure under section 14A, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). 3. Both the learned Representatives agree before us that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised before the Assessing Officer nor before the first appellate authority. He submitted that the necessary facts that are required for adjudicating the aforesaid two grounds, are on record and these are legal grounds and prayed for admission of the additional grounds. 8. On ground no.1, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the due date for payment of deposit linked insurance premium was 1st June 2000, and whereas, the same was paid on 18th May 2000, and hence, it is paid within the due date and no disallowance is warranted. 9. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the evidence was not before the authorities below. The issue in question is payment of provisional premium for renew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56, and submitted that the manner in which the net profits are to be computed for the purpose of calculation of remuneration of directors is specified and hence, the argument of the learned Departmental Representative is wrong. 13. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the assessee has debited the Profit Loss Account by the amount of provisions for doubtful debts / advances. This appears in Schedule-I/Item-4(P) under the head General Expenses . Thereafter, the assessee has reduced the provisions from the loans and advances appeared in Schedule-I of the Balance Sheet and from sundry debtors appearing in Schedule-G of the balance sheet. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank v/s CIT, [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC), held as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat, at the end of the year, the amount of loans and advances/debtors is shown as net of the provisions for the Impugned bad debt. Therefore, in the first place if the bad debt or doubtful debt is reduced from the loans and advances or the debtors from the assets side of the balance sheet the Explanation to Section 115JA or JB is not at all attracted. In that context even if amendment which is made retrospective the benefit given by the Tribunal and the appellate Commissioner to the assessee is in no way affected. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. 2. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra), we allow this ground of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the head Income From Business . The Assessing Officer questioned the same in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. Elaborate submissions were made by the assessee and the Assessing Officer accepted the submissions and did not disturb the claim of the assessee that the income in question is to be taxed only under the head Income From Business . We are informed that for earlier assessment years also, similar treatment was given to this income. On these facts, we are unable to appreciate the contentions of the assessee that the income should rightly be assessed under the head Income From House Property . The assessee cannot take a U turn by filing an additional ground. To decide as to whether an income has to be assessed under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
