TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n deleting disallowance of Rs. 2,72,49,141/- on account of bad - debts written-off even when the assessee had failed to prove that amount was actually trading liability and (In- corresponding amount was actually offered as income in earlier years and without considering'' the provisions of Section 36(l)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Act? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in /deleting the addition of Rs. 2,72,49.141/- u/s 36(1) (vii) of the Act by ignoring the procedure prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court for write off an amount as irrecoverable in the case of I K! Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 190 Taxman 391 (SC)? 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of the Income Tax computation and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was determined at Rs. 74,59,83,101/-. 4. The ld AO made the addition to the normal income:- a. Disallowance of bad debts written off of Rs. 2,72,49,141/- b. PMC expenditure of Rs. 113,50,15,591/- was treated as capital expenditure c. Disallowances of Rs. 12,20,71,176/- by the provisions of expenditure. 5. In computation of book profit he made an adjustment of Rs. 5,34,20,831/- on account of provisions. He further made an addition of Rs. 37,16,24,554/- on account of disallowance of the claim of the assessee of brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less. Accordingly, assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on 27.03.2014. 6. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r years, it satisfied all the characteristic of allowable bad debt u/s 36(2) of the Act. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in allowing the claim of bad debt written off of Rs. 2,72,49,141/- and dismiss the ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal. 9. Ground No. 3 of appeal is with respect to the disallowances of Rs. 113,50,15,51/- deleted by the ld CIT(A) that was held to be capital expenditure by the ld AO. During the course of assessment proceedings the ld AO noted that the assessee has debited Rs. 113.50 crores as miscellaneous expenditure on working of NEZ PMC. These expenditures were incurred in connection with land acquisition and service connection charges paid to Tripura State Electricity Board for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with respect to Indo Bangladesh border. The corresponding revenue received for execution of this work was already credited to the project income amount and taxed. The acquisition of land and payment of electricity charges were on account of above project and it did not create any asset in the hands of the assessee but assessee was merely a contract for construction of border outpost on behalf of Ministry of Home Affairs. We find that ld CIT(A) has correctly held that in the hands of the contractor, assessee the above expenditure was merely project expenditure and has note created any capital assets , hence, not a capital expenditure. Therefore, ground No. 3 of the appeal is dismissed, holding that expenditure of Rs. 113.50 crores incurred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these provisions have already been allowed to the assessee in earlier years and therefore, they are required to be taxed in this year u/s 41(1) of the Act. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,20,71,176/- on account of provision of written back. Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 11. Ground No. 5 is with respect to deletion of disallowance with respect to the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The first adjustment is with respect to addition of Rs. 4,34,20,831/-. The ld AO made the addition stating that this is merely a provision and it is for unascertained liability. The assessee stated that this provision made for ascertain liability. It was stated that Rs. 47,16,570/- is p....