TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rehensive and for the proper consideration of the questions raised, in terms of proviso to sub clause (4) of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the second question of law raised also merits consideration. Hence, the substantial questions of law raised in the Tax Case Appeal read as under:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing 100% depreciation on partitions and structures even though the assessee had not been in a position to establish that the same were temporary in nature? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting the issue of admissibility of deduction of non performing assets and diminution in the value of invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in confirming the order of the Tribunal, thereby answering the question against the Revenue. 3. As regards the second question on the remand order of the Tribunal relating to the admissibility of deduction of non-performing assets and diminishing value of investment, it is seen from the order of the Tribunal that it followed the decision of this Court reported in [2005] 275 ITR 451 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd.). Although there is no reference as to the case law report and the reference is made giving the name of the party and as the decision of the Madras High Court, there is no dispute from either side that the same refers to the decision of this Court reported in [2005] 275 ITR 451 (Commissioner of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who held that even though the Reserve Bank of India's circular might govern the functioning of the Non Banking Finance Companies, in the absence of corresponding provision under the Income Tax Act, the claim of the assessee could not be allowed. Thus, the assessee went on further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider the claim in the light of the decision of this Court reported in [2005] 275 ITR 451 (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd.). 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 320 ITR 577 SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LIMI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assets side of the balance sheet to the extent of the corresponding amount so that, at the end of the year, the amount of loans and advances/debtors is shown as net of the provisions for the impugned bad debt. Thus, the Apex Court held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in its books, as indicated above. The Apex Court pointed out that Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act applies both to banking and non banking business. The manner in which the claim could be allowed has to necessarily follow what was stated herein above viz., apart from debiting the profit and loss account to the extent of the impugned bad debt, it must simultaneously show....