TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the amount of ₹ 20,25,500/-, being the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, which was 8.50% of such income, it is not possible to state that there is any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) qua this ground of appeal. Proposed question [B], therefore, does not give rise to any question of law. Disallowance of provision of doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - HELD THAT:- In the light of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has merely applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vijaya Bank [ 2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT ] to the facts of the present case and directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain the entitlement of the ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses of ₹ 69,22,190/- under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the rules though the assessee had already disallowed ₹ 20,25,500/-, being the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, on the ground that the assessee had not provided the fund flow statement. The assessee had disallowed ₹ 20,25,500/-, being the salary and other expenses incurred towards earning the exempt income. 2.2 Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in its own case for assessment year 2009-10 confirming the view that the Assessing Officer should apply the working under rule 8D of the rules, if the working done by the assessee is not found to be satisfactory. The Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the proposed question [D] is concerned, the same relates to disallowance of provision of doubtful debts of ₹ 1,89,16,687/. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed on a perusal of the Profit and Loss Account that the assessee had claimed an amount of ₹ 1,89,16,687/as provision for bad and doubtful debts and had disallowed the same in terms of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the said ground of appeal by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vijaya Bank, 323 ITR 166. Revenue failed in its appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 As can be seen from the order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and allowed the ground of appeal, subject to verification by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has concurred with the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4.3 In the light of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has merely applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vijaya Bank (supra) to the facts of the present case and directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain the entitlement of the benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, no infirmity can be said to have been committed qua this ground of appeal so as to give rise to any question of law. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is also rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
