TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure incurred on land acquisition - Revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- The acquisition of land and payment of electricity charges were on account of above project and it did not create any asset in the hands of the assessee but assessee was merely a contract for construction of border outpost on behalf of Ministry of Home Affairs - CIT(A) has correctly held that in the hands of the contractor, assessee the above expenditure was merely project expenditure and has note created any capital assets , hence, not a capital expenditure. Disallowance on account of provision written back - HELD THAT:- Before the ld CIT(A) the above claim was contested and the computation of income for last three years was shown wherein, the above provision was disallowed. CIT(A) also examined the details of the provision written back. The complete details as well as the justification which clearly shows that the provision made by the assessee in earlier years was never claimed/ allowed to the assessee. CIT(A) also verified the same with respect to the computation of the total income of the assessee for earlier years. Before us the ld DR could not show that these provisions have already bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act by ignoring the procedure prescribed by Hon ble Apex Court for write off an amount as irrecoverable in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 190 Taxman 391 (SC)? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the-disallowance of ₹ 76,50,97,493/- u/s 37 (1) of the Act by ignoring the fact that the assessee could not discharge its initial onus under section 37 (1) of the Act by not justifying that expenses incurred on land acquisition‟ was of revenue nature? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 8,48,30,839/- on account of provision written back‟ during the year even when the assessee had failed to furnish calculation of excess provision written back in the previous years during assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting disallowances made in books profit u/s 115JB of the Act by accepting and admitting additional evidence adduced by the assessee during appellate proceedings even after specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and amount was written off in the books of account and therefore, the claim is proper. The ld AO disallowed the above claim that the assessee has not produced the relevant details of old outstanding debts, therefore, he disallowed the same. The ld CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of the Supreme Court in TRF Ltd Vs. CIT 323 ITR 397 holding that when the assessee has written off the above sum, debts are already taken into income in earlier years, it is allowable. Nothing new was argued by the ld DR and the ld AR also reiterated the arguments before the ld CIT(A). We find that when the assessee has written off a debt in its books of account, which was taken into computation of income in earlier years, it satisfied all the characteristic of allowable bad debt u/s 36(2) of the Act. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in allowing the claim of bad debt written off of ₹ 2,72,49,141/- and dismiss the ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal. 8. We confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) deleting the above disallowance of ₹ 444994/-. 9. The ground No.3 is with respect to the disallowance of expenditure incurred on l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... project income amount and taxed. The acquisition of land and payment of electricity charges were on account of above project and it did not create any asset in the hands of the assessee but assessee was merely a contract for construction of border outpost on behalf of Ministry of Home Affairs. We find that ld CIT(A) has correctly held that in the hands of the contractor, assessee the above expenditure was merely project expenditure and has note created any capital assets , hence, not a capital expenditure. Therefore, ground No. 3 of the appeal is dismissed, holding that expenditure of ₹ 113.50 crores incurred by the assessee on the project is revenue expenditure in the hands of the assessee. 10. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of this we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismissed ground no. 3 of the appeal. 11. Ground No. 4 of the appeal is with respect to disallowance of ₹ 8,48,30,839/- on account of provision written back‟. This issue is identical to the ground No. 4 in appeal of the ld AO for Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dealt by the coordinate bench in its order in para No. 10 is under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
