TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Bad Debts Relief</h1> <h3>Dy. CIT, Circle-IV, Jalandhar Versus M/s. Punjab Gramin Bank</h3> Dy. CIT, Circle-IV, Jalandhar Versus M/s. Punjab Gramin Bank - TMI Issues:- Interpretation of provisions for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act for Asst. Year: 2008-09.Analysis:1. Background: The appeal was filed by Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A) for Asst. Year: 2008-09 concerning the disallowed relief of Rs.36,75,000 for provision of bad and doubtful debts on standard assets.2. Assessing Officer's Observation: The Assessing Officer disallowed the provision of Rs.36,75,000 made by the assessee against standard assets, stating it was a contingent liability and not allowable as business expenditure.3. ITAT's Initial Decision: The ITAT set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, emphasizing the need for proper examination of the claim and compliance with natural justice principles.4. Assessing Officer's Fresh Order: Following the ITAT's direction, the Assessing Officer again disallowed the provision of Rs.36,75,000, stating that the claim for deduction in respect of standard assets was misplaced.5. CIT(A)'s Decision: The learned CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT.6. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that the relief granted by the CIT(A) was incorrect as the provisions for bad and doubtful debts were on standard assets, not falling within the relevant Asst. Years specified under the proviso to section 36(1)(viia).7. Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that their claim was covered by the main proviso of Section 36(1)(viia) and not the specific proviso mentioned by the Revenue.8. ITAT's Analysis: The ITAT examined the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) and concluded that the deduction was allowed for provisions for bad and doubtful debts without differentiation between bad assets and standard assets. The deduction was specific to certain categories of assesses, such as banks, for anticipated default on loans and advances, not limited to bad debts in the books.9. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the relief to the assessee under the main provisions of section 36(1)(viia) for the provision of bad and doubtful debts, irrespective of whether they were on standard assets. The judgment was pronounced on 22nd June, 2016.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
