9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/2019 by the Revenue challenging the order dated September 28, 2018 in ITA No.1900/Bang/2017 for the A.Ys. 2013-14 have been admitted to consider the following questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside claim of assessee relating to unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts as the bank accounts were admittedly prepared on accrual basis and revenue was recognized following mercantile method except for certain items which were accounted on cash basis? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside claim of assessee relating to unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decisions which has not reached finality and even when the assessing authority rightly disallowed the depreciation on investment of Available for Sale (AFS) and held for trading (HFT) category investment and added to the taxable income?" 2. Heard Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri T.Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee. 3. At the outset, Shri Suryanarayana submitted * that questions No.1 and 2 have been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in ITA No.268/2018 Decided on 13.09.2022; * that questions No.3 and 6 have been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in ITA No.27/2017 Decided on 30.11.2020; * that question No.4 has been cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a provision for Rs.1 Crore in addition to the 10% to the bad debt made in the relevant F.Y. 7. Shri Suryanarayana, adverting to the Para 7 of the impugned order, submitted that in identical circumstances, in assessee's own case, the assessee had made provision in similar manner as made in A.Y. 2013-14. A co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had accepted the provision made by the assessee benefit in Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1. He further submitted that the said order has been followed by the Tribunal in Vijaya Bank and Others vs. Joint Commissioner, Bangalore ITA No.915 & 845/Bang/2017 dated 05.01.2018 and the said method of making provision has been approved by the Calcutta High Court in Uttarabanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing figure depending on the outstanding as increased or reduced respectively by advances made and repayments received. The assessee might provided for bad and doubtful debts but the deduction would only be allowed at the percentage of aggregate average advance, computation of which is prescribed by Rule 6ABA. We find from the amended direction made by the Tribunal that such direction is in terms of Rule 6ABA. The ITO has made the computation of aggregate monthly advances taking loans and advances made during only the previous year relevant to assessment year 2009-10 as confirmed by CIT(A). The Tribunal amended such direction, in our view, correctly applying the rule." 11. In view of the above, these appeals with regard to question No.4 mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
