2017 (12) TMI 869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... grounds inter alia that :- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to grant deduction in respect of (1) provision for bonus of Rs. 1,01,701/-, (2) Sale of fixed assets of Rs. 21,607/- and (3) Foreign exchange gain on capital expenditure of Rs. 5358/- which were claimed by the assessee by filing revised computation of income during the course of assessment proceedings which is not permissible under the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to grant deduction u/s 10A in respect of (1) unpaid bonus inadmissible u/s 43B of Rs. 87,98,002/-, (2) Provision for doubtful debts of Rs. 1,24,67,570/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee's claim of deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter by way of filing appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has partly allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of challenging the impugned order passed by ld. CIT (A). 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The ld. DR for the Revenue challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) relied on the order of the AO. 6. Perusal of para 4 of the assessment order apparently goes to prove that the AO has partly accepted the rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... account of unpaid bonus inadmissible u/s 43B, provision for doubtful debts and payment of employee's contribution to PF respectively claimed by the assessee company by filing revised computation of income during the assessment proceedings. When assessment proceedings were going on, filing of return was not necessary rather return filed by the assessee company has been duly explained by revised computation of income whose genuineness has otherwise been not disputed by the AO. AO has rather selectively used the revised computation of income to the extent of benefit in favour of the Revenue which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in judgment cited as CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. - 330 ITR 175 (Bom.)....