1985 (1) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964." In the asst. yr. 1977-78, however, there is another ground over and above common ground. This ground is in the following terms: "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not excluding Rs. 5,994 being short term capital gain and Rs. 46,104 being long term capital gain both chargeable under the head Capital Gain as provided in r. 1(i) of the first Sch. to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964." 2. Since all these four appeals have been argued together, we would for the sake of convenience and brevity, consolidate them and dispose them of by a common order. 3. With regard to the common ground raised in the four appeals, Shri H.P. Aggrawal, ld. counsel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1977 CTR (Bom) 126 : (1977) 108 ITR 453 (Bom), Add. CIT vs. Indian Telephone Industries (1979) 10 CTR (Kar) 44 : (1979) 118 ITR 291 (Kar) and Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 172 : (1984) 150 ITR 484 (Bom). 4. With regard to the second ground taken in the asst. yr. 1977-78, the ld. counsel has contended that short term capital gains of Rs. 5,994 and long term capital gains of Rs. 48,104 ought to have been excluded while computing the chargeable profits in accordance with r. 1(i) of the First Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. In support of this contention the ld. counsel has once against placed reliance on the aforementioned order dt.20th May, 1982of the Tribunal in the case o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t it had been determined on an ad hoc basis without reference to any specific anticipated loss on account of bad debts and without meticulous calculation of the chances of recovery. The provision of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of bad and doubtful debts had not been actually utilised for the purpose for which it was earmarked. In fact year after year the assessee had been separately making claim of deductions for bad and doubtful debts by writing off the amount and by debating them to its P & L A/c. In other words. the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs set apart for bad and doubtful debts was not in regard to any known liability. In these circumstances we would respectfully agree with the order of the Tribunal passed in the assessee's own case in the asst. yrs.....