2021 (8) TMI 1046

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under: 4. Assessee is a company which had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 386,15,69,830/-. The return of income was revised on 30.03.2012 at a total income of Rs. 382,66,09,666/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 12.03.2014 accepting the returned income in the revised return. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.04.2015 and consequently assessment was framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16.11.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs. 406,60,87,364/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to AO as he was of the view that the provision created by the assessee does not indicate as to whether these provisions are for standard assets or bad and doubtful debts. He was further of the view that 'provisions for standard assets' cannot be considered as 'provisions for bad and doubtful debts'. He therefore held that since assessee has not created any 'provision for bad and doubtful debts' in its books of accounts it is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act and accordingly the claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 22,85,38,698/- was denied. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that assessee has made a provision in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere to the order of CIT(A) and thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Now we take up the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15. 10. AO noticed that assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 63,23,40,447/- u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act on account of 'provision for bad and doubtful debts'. He noticed that in the annual accounts assessee had created a 'provision for bad and doubtful debts' only to the extent of Rs. 21,30,19,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the reason of the difference in the two amounts. The assessee, inter alia, submitted that it has created provision amounting to Rs. 327.80 crores and, therefore, the claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 63.23 crores to be allowed. The submis....