9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B", has referred for the opinion of this court the following questions under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 91,513 for the assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of capital employed. The Income-tax Officer refused to treat the amount of Rs. 91,513 as reserve, as according to him, the said amount represented estimated bad debts. For the assessment year 1970-71, the Income-tax Officer was of the view that the entire amount was deducted from the debts and, therefore, the said amount was in fact a provision and could not be treated as a reserve. He, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and upheld the decision of the lower authorities. We are of the view that the said amounts represent the estimated bad debts and, therefore, the authorities were right in treating the same as "provision" and not as "reserve". The Tribunal was, in the facts of the case, justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 91,513 for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned counsel for the assessee tried to contend that there is already a finding arrived at that there was an excess provision for other expenses. He submitted that even in the question referred there is reference to admitted excess provision for other expenses. We do not accept this submission for the simple reason that all the authorities below, have clearly found that the original provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
