TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uishable material has been produced before us. The claim of the assessee has been decided by following the law settled in M/S. VIJAYA BANK VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANR. [ 2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] and YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. [ 2011 (8) TMI 766 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] . Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances of the case, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue. - I.T.A. Nos.2777/M/2016 & 2778/M/2016 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2018 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Ketan Ved (AR) Respondent by: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT AR) Rajat Mittal (DR) ORDER AMARJIT SINGH, J. The assessee has filed the above mentioned appeals against the order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the ACIT in adding back the provision for doubtful debts of ₹ 15,30,51,618 while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act. General 5. Each one of above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 6. The appellant craves leave to add. alter or amend to the above grounds of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 20.09.2010 declaring total income to the tune of ₹ 46,04,77,470/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of ₹ 43,15,37,756/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2011 was issued and served up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that this issue has already been remanded before the AO while deciding the case by the Mumbai ITAT in ITA. No.2334/M/2013 for the A.Y. 2009-10 by virtue of order dated 10.06.2016, therefore, accordingly, this issue is being liable to be restored before the AO to examine and decide afresh. Copy of order dated 10.06.2016 in ITA. No.2334/M/2013 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee s own case is on the file in which the issue has already remanded before the AO to decide afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Since, this issue is pending before the AO for the A.Y. 2009-10, therefore, we se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank v/s CIT, 323 ITR 166 (SC), as interpreted by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v/s Yokogawa India Ltd., [2012] 204 Taxman 305 (Kar.). 11. The learned Departmental Representative, while agreeing with the propositions laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court, in its judgment cited supra wherein the Hon ble Court has dealt with an identical issue and the same was decided in favour of the Revenue, relied on the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, and submitted that the interpretation requires re-consideration. He further relied on Page-30, of the assessee s paper book and submitted that for the purpose of computation of managerial remuneration, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court held as follows: - 5 However, it was clarified that besides debiting the profit and loss account and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee correspondingly/simultaneously obliterated the said provision from its accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from loans and advances/debtors on the assets side of the balance sheet and, consequentially, at the end of the year, the figure in the loans and advances or the debtors on the assets side of the balance sheet was shown as net of the provision for the impugned bad debt. Then the said amount representing bad debt or doubtful debt cannot be added in order to compute book profit. Therefore, after the Explanation the assessee is now required not only to deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the assessment year2011-12. 9. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - The appellant objects to the order dated 18 February 2016passed by the Commissioner of Income-lax (Appeals)-1 Mumbai on the following among other grounds: Disallowance of provision for loss on contract 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of an amount of ₹ 8,06,67,254/- towards provision for loss on contract. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that provision for loss on con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
