TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were admitted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.07.2008, arising from the order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, dated 07.12.2007. ''1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Lease Equalisation Charges are not allowable ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision for Non Performing Assets is not to be added back while computing the Book Profits u/s 115JA of the Income Tax Act,1961 ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision for Non Performing Assets is not allowable, even though the same was based on the directions from the RBI ? 4. Whether the Tribunal failed to note that when, despite the High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent can be charged only on real income which can be calculated only after applying the prescribed method. The IT Act is silent on such deduction. For such calculation, it is obvious that the Respondent has to take course of Guidance Note prescribed by the ICAI if it is available. Only after applying such method which is prescribed in the Guidance Note, the Respondent can show fair and real income which is liable to tax under the IT Act. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Respondent claimed deduction by virtue of Guidance Note rather it only applied the method of bifurcation as prescribed by the expert team of ICAI. Further, a conjoint reading of Section 145 of the IT Act read with Section 211 (un-amended) of the Companies Act ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax, in T.C.A.Nos.1532 and 1533 of 2008, on 18.12.2018. The relevant portion of the said judgment is also quoted below for ready reference : ''9. Pursuant to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Beard Sell (supra), the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. HCL Comet Systems & Services Ltd. ((2008) 305 ITR 409) considered the question of whether a provision for bad and doubtful debts would be part of 'book profits' in terms of Explanation (c) to s.115JA of the Act. The Bench held that such provision would only represent a probable diminution in the value of the asset not a provision for liability. Thus, Explanation (c) to s.115JA would not be attracted in such instances and the amount was not liable to be adde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax, (2006) 153 Taxman 466 (Mad). The relevant portion of the said decision is quoted below for ready reference : ''5. Further, the Commissioner (Appals), on the facts of the case, found that merely because the Reserve Bank of India has directed the assessee to provide for non performing assets, that direction cannot override the mandatory provisions of the Income-tax Act contained in Section 36 (1) (viia) which stipulate for deduction not exceeding 5 per cent of the total income only in respect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts which are predominately revenue in nature or trade related and not for provision for non-performing assets which are of predominately capital nature, and held that the Assessing Officer wa....