TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observations to the effect that since no provision is created for the bad debts, and that, for this reason, the same cannot be allowed as deduction, we find this aspect of the matter is now covered by the decision in the case of Power Finance Corporation Limited Vs JCIT [2006 (8) TMI 332 - ITAT DELHI] inasmuch as undisputedly the assessee has created a provision of ₹ 1,42,36,140 to the debit of reserve fund against the investment in CRB Capital Market, and the mere fact that it is termed as transfer to reserve does not alter substance of the provision because admittedly it is an above the line transfer and not below the line appropriation. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a cooperative bank. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed a deduction of ₹ 1,01,08,760. It was also noted that while in the profit and loss account, there is a provision for bad debts of ₹ 4,85,154 and of ₹ 1,42,36,140, the deduction, as made in the computation, is of ₹ 1,01,08,760. The AO, on a perusal of material on record, was of the view that the amount of ₹ 1,42,36,140, against investment in CRB Capital Markets, has been debited to reserve fund, and, as such, no provision is created as required under section 36(1)(viia). He noted that as the provision is confined to ₹ 4,85,154, the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) is restricted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of reserve fund against the investment in CRB Capital Market, and the mere fact that it is termed as transfer to reserve does not alter substance of the provision because admittedly it is an above the line transfer and not below the line appropriation. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the relief granted by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 6. Ground no. 1 is thus dismissed. 7. In ground no. 2, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance: The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of provision on account of Government Securities. 8. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
