2019 (6) TMI 1225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal ought to have allowed the Appellant's claim for deduction of Rs. 26,44,876/- as payment towards scientific research assistance? iii. Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the reduction of exemption claimed by the Appellant under section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act and in this regard relying upon the provisions of section 14A of the Act?" 2. We notice that the appellant-assessee has suggested following additional questions :- "a. Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the additional grounds raised by it relating to grant of deduction in respect of write off of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii), exclusion of the amount received as recovery of bad debts written off not liable to tax under section 41(4) and as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ely covered by the later decisions of the Supreme Court and therefore, there was no need for the Tribunal to send these issues back to the Assessing Officer, particularly since no fresh facts had to be ascertained. 4. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal had merely sent the issues back to the Assessing Officer for proper examination on the additional grounds raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. We are informed that the Assessing Officer has already given effect to such directions of the Tribunal and passed appropriate order, which of course has given rise to further dispute between the assessee and the department. Be that as it may, in facts of the case, we do not think that the Tribunal's ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essing Officer. The CIT(A) further held that the appellant assessee was following a mercantile system of accounting and it was not permissible to waive the income which had accrued to it. This depreciation claimed is not yet an ascertained amount and adhoc deduction cannot be allowed. (iii) Further appeal by the appellant assessee to the Tribunal led to the impugned order. The Tribunal by the impugned order upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) based on various binding decisions of the Apex Court as well as the jurisdictional High Court. (iv) The grievance of the appellant assessee is that there has been a real fall in the value of the asset during the subject assessment year. Therefore, the diminution i....