TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....However, for this year the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the AO with certain directions. It was contended that the Tribunal has observed as follows: "We do not find that the deposits raised at Dubai were brought into India and utilised in respect of the business carried on in India." However, this observation is not correct. It was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the NRIs' deposits in foreign currency of more than Rs. 850 crores were mobilized and brought into India during the accounting period relevant to the year under appeal and copy of balance sheet was also filed. Therefore, the observation of Tribunal is factually incorrect and hence needs rectification. 3. On specific query from the Bench the learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is ex facie erroneous on facts, as the provision under s. 36(1)(viia) is never released and credited to the P&L a/c. The assessee at no point of time admitted that the provision under s. 36(1)(viia) made is only net of debit and credit entries. Neither does this observation and finding flow from the facts and materials and evidences on records, nor from the submissions made during the hearing. The Tribunal as the final fact-finding authority must bring the correct factual position on record. The applicant further submits that they had filed a chart under s. 36(1)(viia) from inception till date tracking the year-wise movements in the provision account under s. 36(1)(viia). From the entire history of this provision account from inception ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave also noted as to how much provision was written back. The assessee while making a provision for bad debts, does not claim the same to be allowable and in the same sense the assessee does not offer for tax the provision written back in the accounts. Therefore, the Tribunal has drawn a conclusion that the provision written back is in respect of both types of claim under s. 36(1)(vii) and s. 36(1)(viia). The chart to which our attention was drawn is also perused by us and it was also considered at the time of passing the original order. Accordingly, we do not find any "mistake apparent on record" which can be rectified within the meaning of s. 254(2). Power under s. 254(2) is to rectify "the mistake apparent on record" and not to review th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest of Rs. 32.2 crores was paid to head office which was claimed deductible under s. 37(1) r/w cls. (5) and (7) of art. 7 of Indo-UK DTAA. It was contended that only Rs. 3 crores was payable to ANZ, London which was a separate and distinct entity from head office. Therefore, the claim to the extent was proved to be paid to separate entity, was held to be allowable and the claim in respect of payment of interest to head office was disallowed following the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of ABN Amro Bank NV vs. Asstt. Director of IT (2005) 98 TTJ (Kol)(SB) 295 : (2005) 97 ITD 89 (Kol)(SB). Thus, it cannot be said that there is any mistake apparent on record. 9. We have perused the material and considered the rival submis....