TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 9.11.2010 is directed against the order of CIT (A)-4, Mumbai dated 24.8.2010 for the assessment year 1996-1997. 2. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following grounds which read as under: 1. The order of the CIT (A) is opposed to law and facts of the facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in holding that the amount of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned that originally, Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the provision for bad debts amounting to ₹ 105,99,46,975/- has to be deducted from combined write off of Rural and Non-Rural advances as against the assessee s claim that the said provision has to be adjudicated set off against the Rural debts only and Non-Rural debts of ₹ 118,61,62,725/- has to be allowed in full. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of actual write off and another, on the basis of clause (viia) in respect of a mere provision. Further, to prevent double deduction, the proviso to clause(vii) was inserted which says that in respect of bad debt(s) arising out of rural advances, the deduction on account of actual write off would be limited to the excess of the amount written off over the amount of the provision allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eof in the assessment is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso to clause(vii). 3.1. Further, Ld Counsel referred the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for the AY 1989-1990, which was decided in favour of the assessee relying on the Special Bench decision in the case of CIT vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (88 ITD 185). 4. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd (supra) which is relied upon by the Ld Counsel before us. Considering the settled nature of the issue at the level of Hon ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that order of CIT (A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of Nov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
