TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present appeal against the order dated 06.11.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the A.Y.2014-15. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals') was not justified and grossly erred in not allowing deduction of leave encashment claimed on provision basis amounting to Rs. 4,97,882/- for the purpose of computing total income under normal provisions of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the U. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in treating the receipts of Rs. 22,13,259/- wrongly appearing in Form 26AS as income of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7,72,858/- under MAT provisions. ISSUE NO. 1 5. This issue has not been pressed by the Ld. Representative of the assessee, therefore, this issue is being decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee being not pressed. ISSUE NO.2 6. Under this issue the Ld. Representative of the assessee has challenged the receipts of Rs. 22,13,259/- which has wrongly been shown in Form 26AS as income of the assessee. It is contended by the Ld. Representative of the assessee that the appellant claimed TDS credit of Rs. 91,36,076/- on the basis of credit appearing in Form 26AS. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the entry of receipts of Rs. 22,13,259/- from Goa Hotels and Clubs Pvt. Ltd., D. S. Gupta Construction Pvt. Ltd. wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that after insertion of the Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee is required not only to debt the P & L Account but simultaneously also reduce the loan and advances or the debtor from the assets side of the balance-sheet to the extent of corresponding amount so that at the end of the year, the amount of loan advances/debtor is shown as net of provision for impugned bad debts. Once a provision in respect of doubtful debts stood created and ultimately carried to the Balance-sheet, wherein Loans and Advances or debtors stood reduced by the amount of such provision, then such treatment amounted to actual write off because, in the final analysis, at the year end, the so called provision does not remain and the balance-sheet only carr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....falls within the expression 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature', as defined in Explanation-3 to sec. 32(1)(ii) of the Act?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in allowing depreciation on customer contract: without appreciating the fact that customer contracts are trade contracts give rise to revenue receipt on transfer, whereas intangible asset, as shown in Expl.-3 to sec. 32(1)(ii) of the Act, capital receipt?" 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the provision for doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by holding that the assessee has complied with the provisions of sec. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d was eligible for depreciation in terms of Explanation 3(b) to Sec. 32(1) of the Act. It has also relied on the decision of this office in appellant's own case for the preceding A.Y's i.e A.Y.2011-12, A.Y.2012-13 and A.Y.201344, wherein this ground has been decided in favour of the appellant, following the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of India Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCTT (supra), vide order dated 29.07.2016, 30.09.2016 & 20.04.2017 respectively. Following the precedence i.e. the orders of the CIT(A)-2 Mumbai in the appellant's own case for the A.Y.2011-12, A.Y.2012-13 and A.Y.2013-14, it is held that the appellant is eligible for depreciation on the customer contracts in terms of Explanation 3(b) ....