TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) Disallowance made u/s 14A. (ii) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii). 3. The revenue is in appeal in respect of following grounds: (i) Bad-debts written off. (ii) Allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(viii). (iii) Deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). (iv) Deletion of computation of book profit u/s 115JB. (v) About the deletion of addition u/s 14A. 4. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee is a public sector Bank and filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1054,85,28,225/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) and while making computation, the Assessing Officer (AO) made various addition under the different head vide assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the contentions, which it may deem it necessary before the AO in respect of this issue. After affording necessary opportunity of being heard, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law". 8. We respectfully following the direction of co-ordinate bench also remand this issue to the file of AO to consider this issue in accordance with the direction in ITA No. 4678/Mum/2013. 9. The next issue for our consideration is claim/deduction u/s 36(1) (viii) of I.T.Act. 10. The AR of the assessee has argued that similar issue was raised by the assessee-Bank in respect of AY-2008-09 and the same was restored to the file of AO with the following direction in ITA No. 4678/Mum/2013. "Hence, in our view, the workings gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... similar issue was raised by the revenue and the same was decided by this Tribunal against the revenue, hence, this ground is squarely covered by the finding given in para 17 of the Tribunal order in ITA No. 4842/Mum/2013, wherein it is observed: "We notice that the Tribunal has allowed identical claim in the assessee's own case in AY 2007-08, vide its order dated 18.1.2003 passed in ITA Nos.6631/Mum/2010 & 6349/Mum/2010. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (343 ITR 270) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd (2012)(349 ITR 705). We also notice that the new Explanation 2, which covers both rural and non-rural advances, ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clear that it is the intention of the legislature that the provision should be made specifically for this purpose but did not however require that the provision needs to be made only in the relevant previous year as could be clearly seen on comparative reading of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia)." "It is clear that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts should be allowed under section 36(1)(viia), to the extent of provision made and available in the books of account, whether made in the current previous year or in the preceding previous years as none of the lower authorities i.e. either Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue under consideration from this angel and as the entire facts are not av....