TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the issue before the AO to re-consider all the entries and to decide the matter of controversy in accordance with law. Needless to say that an opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the assessee. Disallowance on account of doubtful advances u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) for the purpose of computing total income under normal provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- Once a provision in respect of doubtful debts stood created and ultimately carried to the Balance-sheet, wherein Loans and Advances or debtors stood reduced by the amount of such provision, then such treatment amounted to actual write off because, in the final analysis, at the year end, the so called provision doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) -02, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Y.2014-15. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals ) was not justified and grossly erred in not allowing deduction of leave encashment claimed on provision basis amounting to ₹ 4,97,882/- for the purpose of computing total income under normal provisions of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the U. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in treating the receipts of ₹ 22,13,259/- wrongly appearing in Form 26AS as income of the appellant for the purpose of computing total income under normal provisions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 5. This issue has not been pressed by the Ld. Representative of the assessee, therefore, this issue is being decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee being not pressed. ISSUE NO.2 6. Under this issue the Ld. Representative of the assessee has challenged the receipts of ₹ 22,13,259/- which has wrongly been shown in Form 26AS as income of the assessee. It is contended by the Ld. Representative of the assessee that the appellant claimed TDS credit of ₹ 91,36,076/- on the basis of credit appearing in Form 26AS. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the entry of receipts of ₹ 22,13,259/- from Goa Hotels and Clubs Pvt. Ltd., D. S. Gupta Construction Pvt. Ltd. were not recorded and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after insertion of the Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee is required not only to debt the P L Account but simultaneously also reduce the loan and advances or the debtor from the assets side of the balance-sheet to the extent of corresponding amount so that at the end of the year, the amount of loan advances/debtor is shown as net of provision for impugned bad debts. Once a provision in respect of doubtful debts stood created and ultimately carried to the Balance-sheet, wherein Loans and Advances or debtors stood reduced by the amount of such provision, then such treatment amounted to actual write off because, in the final analysis, at the year end, the so called provision does not remain and the balance-sheet only carries th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customer contract falls within the expression 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature', as defined in Explanation-3 to sec. 32(1)(ii) of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT was right in allowing depreciation on customer contract: without appreciating the fact that customer contracts are trade contracts give rise to revenue receipt on transfer, whereas intangible asset, as shown in Expl.-3 to sec. 32(1)(ii) of the Act, capital receipt? 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the provision for doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by holding that the assessee has complied with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contracts were in the nature of intangible assets and was eligible for depreciation in terms of Explanation 3(b) to Sec. 32(1) of the Act. It has also relied on the decision of this office in appellant's own case for the preceding A.Y's i.e A.Y.2011-12, A.Y.2012-13 and A.Y.201344, wherein this ground has been decided in favour of the appellant, following the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of India Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCTT (supra), vide order dated 29.07.2016, 30.09.2016 20.04.2017 respectively. Following the precedence i.e. the orders of the CIT(A)-2 Mumbai in the appellant's own case for the A.Y.2011-12, A.Y.2012-13 and A.Y.2013-14, it is held that the appellant is eligible for depreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
