TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovision of Bad Debt Written off u/s 36(1)(vii)(a)(c) @ 5% of the income (para 3 of the order) should be calculated after allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, by wrongly interpreting the Act and not holding that the bad debts written off can only be set off to the extent of the balance in the Provisions for bad debts account (created under section 36(1)(vii)(a)(c) accounts which have been allowed in the earlier assessments. 3. The assessee craves the right to add, alter or in any way amend the grounds of appeal or before the hearing." 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. A/R of the assessee has stated at Bar that the assessee does not press ground no. 2 of the appeal and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. The ld. D/R has raised no objection if the ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed being not pressed. The only ground pressed is ground no. 1 regarding validity of reopening of the assessment. 3. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has reopened the assessment vide notice under section 148 dated 7th March, 2013 which is after the expiry o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case when the only issue raised in this appeal by the assessee is validity of reopening, which was not pressed before the ld. CIT (A) amounts to abiding the decision of the ld. CIT (A) on this issue and then taking the same directly to this Tribunal cannot be entertained. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to entertain the ground no. 1 of the assessee's appeal. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA NO. 355/JP/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 : 6. The assessee has raised the solitary ground as under :- " 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II has erred in holding that the Provision of Bad Debt Written off u/s 36(1)(vii)(a)(c) @ 5% of the income (para 2.2 of the order) should be calculated after allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, by wrongly interpreting the Act and not holding that the bad debts written off can only be set off to the extent of the balance in the Provisions for bad debts account (created under section 36(1)(vii)(a)(c) accounts which have been allowed in the earlier assessments. 3. The assessee craves the right to add, alter or in any way amend the grounds of appeal or bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f new provision made by the assessee the claims should be allowed. 9.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that these details and facts were not brought on record by the assessee either during the assessment proceedings or during the proceedings before ld. CIT (A), therefore, these facts requires verification at the end of the AO if at all the same are to be considered for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. 10. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, we note that the AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee with the statement that the assessee has already taken a lot of time and the case was time barred on 31st March, 2014. Accordingly a final opportunity was given to the assessee to give details by 18.03.2014. However, no reply was received by the AO and accordingly the claim of the assessee was disallowed considering the fact that there was no new provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee. Now the assessee has filed the details of provision made for bad and doubtful debts and submitted that the assessee has made fresh provision to the extent of Rs. 21,64,58,670/- though the w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA NO. 1063/JP/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 : 15. In this cross appeal, the revenue has raised the following grounds :- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (Appeals) was justified in holding that the assessee can not be termed as a company with in the meaning of section 2(18)(a) of the I.T. Act and provisions of section 115JB are not applicable on the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,04,000/- made on account of prior period expenses. 3. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing." 16. Ground No. 1 is regarding the addition made by the AO while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act which was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) by holding that MAT provisions are not applicable in the case of the financial corporations as the accounts are not maintained as per Schedule-VI of the Companies Act. 17. We have heard the ld. D/R as well as the ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... should have been accounted for in the relevant year. In the present proceedings, it has been stated that this demand raised by the government in this year and the same crystallized during the year itself and so has been rightly accounted for. Since, the demand was raised by the Government of Rajasthan in this relevant year and in the case of government corporation's approvals and sanctions have to be taken and as has been consistently held by the ITAT in such cases, the expenditure of this nature is allowable in the year in which such expenses are finally sanctioned and approved. Reliance is placed on the order of ITAT in the case of Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. dated 12.02.2016 for the assessment year 2012- 13. The ground of appeal is allowed. The addition made is deleted." Thus the ld. CIT (A) has given the finding that the demand was raised by the Government of Rajasthan during the year under consideration and, therefore, the same was crystallized during the year itself. Once the fact of raising the demand by the Government of Rajasthan during the year has not been disputed by the AO, therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of ld. CIT (A) in al....