TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e circumstances of the case the ITAT erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,05,744/- being provision for doubtful debt on the ground, that the provision for doubtful debt are doubtful for recovery and therefore cannot be equated with liability, which is contrary to provisions of Section 115JA, by ignoring the finding of the CIT(A) that the entire provision represented advances towards sister concern and not trade debts and that it was an adhoc provision made towards advances of doubtful recovery and therefore cannot be treated as unascertained liability u/s 115JA? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT erred in law by deleting the interest u/s 234B&C of the IT Act, by relying on the decision of the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances made by the respondent assessee to its sister concern and the non-recovery of the same was provided as provision for bad debts on an adhoc basis. The CIT(A) held the same to be covered by clause (c) of explanation to Section 115JA(2) of the Act as being in the nature of unascertained liability. So far as interest payable under Section 234B and 234C of the Act as default and delay of advance tax payment was concerned, the order of the Assessing Officer was upheld. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23/02/2001 of CIT(A), the respondent filed an appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the provision in respect of doubtful debts is not a liability much less an ascertained liability for the purposes of appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion for doubtful debts, would stand covered by clause (c) of the explanation to Section 115JA(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that in the present facts, there is no justification for the Tribunal to delete the addition of provision for doubtful debts made to the book profits of Rs. 20.5 lakhs under Section 115JA of the Act. (iii) Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent assessee reiterates the findings in the impugned order. (iv) It is very clear from the language of clause (c) of the explanation to Section 115JA(2) of the Act that it only refers to the amount set aside for provisions made for meeting liabilities, which are not ascertained. In the present case, indisputably, the amount of Rs. 20.5 lakhs sought to be added to ....