TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in la The learned CIT (A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of share application money u/s.68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1.03 crores without appreciating the fact that as per the provisions of the company's Act,1956, the assessee can accept share application money to the extent of authorized share capital and not beyond that?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)was correct in deleting the disallowances on account of provision for doubtful debts at Rs. 65,40,000/- without appreciating the following facts that the conditions laid down in section 36(1)(vii)r.w.s.36(2) of the Act was not duly complied with ,which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noticed that the total authorized capital of the assessee was Rs. 50.00 lacs and the shares of Rs. 33,88,290/- were already issued to the holding company and, therefore, there was a scope for allotment of further shares only to the extent of Rs. 16,11,710/-. Thus, as per the Assessing Officer the receipt of share application money of Rs. 1,02,78,800/- was not within the limits of authorized share capital. Before the Assessing Officer,it was explained that being the initial set-up phase, assessee company was in need of funds and accordingly the holding company has infused equity funds into the company from time to time. It was pointed out that as on 31.03.2008, Rs. 1,02,78,800/- was received from the holding company in the form of equity fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of CIT(A) and pointed out that in assessment year 2007-08 also a similar addition was made, which has been deleted by the CIT(A). It was submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) in the Assessment Year 2007-08, has been accepted by the Department as no appeal has been preferred to the Tribunal and, therefore, in the instant year, the impugned order of the CIT(A) be affirmed in as much as it has followed the earlier decision of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2007-08. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. During the year under consideration the assessee company received a sum of Rs. 1,02,78,800/-, which was claimed to be received from its parent company i.e. M/s.Linfox International Group Pty. Ltd., Australia. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 36(2) of the Act. Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had debited Provision for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 65,40,000/- to the P&L Account. On being asked to explain, assessee contended that the impugned sum was in the nature of non-recoveries from the customers. It was explained that the nature of the transaction was write off of non-recoverable amounts from the customers and, therefore, it was in the nature of a bad debt written-off, which was allowable under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s.36(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer however, disallowed the claim on the ground that it was stated as a Provision for doubtful debts. 9. We find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the clients which could not be recovered and hence constituted a bad debt. The amount represented short recovery of transportation charges from the clients on account of losses occurred on account of retention, loss of stock and damage to stock whereas the transport invoices were accounted in the books of accounts for the whole amounts reflected in the transportation invoices. In the facts and circumstances, the amount wrongly claimed as provision of Rs. 65,40,000/- was actually a bad debt which was already included in the sale turnover of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances the conditions laid down in sec. 36(1)(vii) r.w. 36(2) of the Act were duly complied with. As per Supreme Court decision on this issue there was no requirem....