TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case and deleted the addition made under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with such findings and consequently confirm the same. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue s appeal is accordingly dismissed. Addition u/s 36(1) and (2) - loan balance due from Carrier Launcher Education Foundation (CLEF) was written off - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee had declared the amount in question as income in the earlier assessment years and paid in taxes thereon, Ld. CIT(A) held that the conditions required u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36 (2) of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that in the earlier assessment years the assessee did not declare the impugned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 14 A of the I T act, New Delhi tune of ₹ 1, 27, 35, 364/-. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of unearned interest on advances written off to the tune of ₹ 1, 54, 88, 025/-without any definite finding on the issue. 3. The appellant craves leave to for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, added or forego any ground (is) of appeal at any time before or during a hearing of this appeal. 2. Insofar as ground No. 1 is concerned it could be seen from the record that the assessee submitted before the learned Assessing Officer that the assessee had not been earning any income from the subsidiary company, out of investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cher Education Foundation (CLEF) was written off and according to the assessee CLEF was in the business of providing MBA education and had suffered huge financial loss and, therefore, discontinued its business; that in the view of the management, the outstanding interest receivable was doubtful of recovery and therefore, it was decided to write of the interest of ₹ 1.54 crores receivable from CLEF. It was further pleaded that the written off was in the nature of loan given by the assessee and a different from a trade receivable. 6. Learned Assessing Officer however, held that such a loan and advances as given to CLEF sought to be written off was of capital in nature and therefore the same was not allowable. In the appeal, Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
