TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 2172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal in assessee's own case. In the A.Y. 2005-06, AO has disallowed deduction of bad debts written off u/s 36(1)(vii) over and above 108,38,37,780/- claimed by the assessee since the aggregate amount of bad debts written off as irrecoverable in accounts of the assessee in the PY 2004-05 was Rs. 240,77,67,897/- 4. By the impugned order CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 5. We have considered rival contentions and found that assessee claimed bad debt of Rs. 108.38 ( Rs. 240.78 Cr. - 132.39 cr), however AO in Para 3.7 on page 6 of his order disallowed the same on the plea that income of the assessee was not taxable upto A Y 2002-03 and the bad debt claimed pertains to income offered prior to A Y 2002-03, hence deduction not allowable. Before CIT(A) assessee pleaded that entire amount of Rs. 240.78 Cr should be allowed as bad debt without reducing provision allowed u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of Rs. 132.39 Crore as there is no opening credit balance in the provision account. However Ld CIT(A) in Para 2 on page 1 dealing with this issue allowed a sum of Rs. 108.38 crore only as claimed by the assessee in the ROI. 6. We found that issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l debts made by-fa) a scheduled bank not being a bank incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India or a non-scheduled bank, an amount not exceeding five per cent, of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA) and an amount not exceeding ten per cent, of the . aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of, such bank computed in the prescribed manner : From a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it would be clear that the Assessee is thus entitled to claim deduction both under Sec. 36(1)(vii) and Sec, 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The only limitation is that the amount of deduction shall not exceed the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. In the present case there is no dispute that provisions of Sec.36(1)(viia) applies to the Assessee and also the fact the amount of deduction relating to bad debts written off is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. In the case of the Assessee there is no dispute that there was no credit balan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004-05, we direct the AO to estimate 5% of the dividend income made as expenditure to be disallowed u/s.14A of the IT Act. We direct accordingly. 12. In the result, ground raised by assessee is allowed in part. 13. Next grievance of assessee relates to action of CIT(A) in upholding disallowance of Rs. 60,79,783/- being proportionate amount of lease premium paid to MMRDA. This issue is dealt by AO at para 5.5 and CIT(A) at para 4. 14. We found that this issue is covered against the assessee by the Tribunal in its order for A.Y. 2004-05 after having the detailed observation at para 5. "However in A Y 2006-07 (ITA No 4047/Mum/2011 ) ITAT directed the AO to apply the decision of HC as it reaches finality as mentioned on Para 15 on page 12 of the ITAT order for AY 2006-07." 15. Learned AR submitted that assessee has filed appeal in the High Court against this issue. Necessary form u/s.158A has also been filed. Accordingly, we direct the AO to follow the decision of the High Court on this issue in all the years under consideration. 16. Assessee is also aggrieved for disallowing deduction for contribution to CGTMSE amounting to Rs. 49,07,25,000/-. We have gone thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that it would make no difference to the claim for deducibility u/s 37(1) of the Act if the amount was not debited to the Profit & Loss Account and that, in any case, the said amount was debited to the Profit & Loss Account in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-09 and in such a year, no deduction was claimed by the assessee. 21. The CIT(A) has proceeded to affirm the action of the Assessing Officer primarily on the ground that it was a fresh claim, not made through the return of income; and, it was also not shown as an expenditure by way of a debit in the Profit & Loss Account. Against such a decision, assessee is in further appeal before us. 22. The learned representative pointed out that similar claim came up for consideration before the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2004-05 vide ITA Nos. 7143 & 6771/Mum/2008 dated 15.02.2012. In Assessment Year 2004-05, the said claim was admitted as an Additional Ground of appeal and the matter was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The learned representative pointed out that in the order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal passed by the Assessing Officer on 01.06.2012, copy of which ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A) is set-aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim, as above. Thus, assessee succeeds on this aspect. 19. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, we direct the AO to allow deduction for contribution to CGTMSE. We direct accordingly. 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 21. In ITA No. 4218/Mum/2011, Revenue is aggrieved for deleting the disallowance towards bad debts of Rs. 240,77,67,897/- in the A.Y. 2005- 06. We have considered rival contentions and found that CIT(A) has deleted the addition on account of bad debts by following the decision of the ITAT for A.Y. 2002-03 & 2003-04, the CIT(A) has elaborately dealt with the issue at page 2 para 2.1. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 22. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y.2009-10: 23. Ground No.1 relates to upholding disallowance of Rs. 60,79,783/- being proportionate amount of lease premium. Similar issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relates to taxability of write back of IRDF claim U/s 41 of the I.T. Act. From the record we found that an amount of Rs. 236,48,93,308/- being balance in Interest Rate Differential Fund (IRDF) has been written back to P & L Account. Out of the said amount an amount of Rs. 92,22,90,9057- pertains to interest expenditure incurred prior to A.Y. 2002-03 for which period the assessee bank was exempt from payment of taxes on its income in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of the assessee vide ITA No. 673 of 2012 dated 12.9.2012 where it was held that the income of the assessee was exempt upto assessment year 2002-03, the same was claimed as deduction from taxable income during the year under consideration. Assessment Year 2002-03 in view of section 50 of SIDBI Act. This amount being not been claimed and allowed as deduction in the assessment for any year prior to assessment year 2002-03, the same was claimed as deduction from taxable income during the year under consideration. 31. ITAT in the assessee's own case for AY 2003-04 vide order ITA No. 4044/Mum/2011 dated 15/09/2017 dealing with the similar situation held as under: "9. We have co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15,03,988/- u/s 41(4) of the Act. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds." 32. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2002-03 dated 15/09/2017. We do not find any merit in the action of the AO for invoking provisions of Section. 41(4) of the Act. We direct accordingly. 33. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. A.Y.2010-11 34. Ground No.1 relating to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) action in confirming that the deduction allowed in respect of provision of bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) for AY 2009-10 amounting to Rs 36,07,44,658/- has to be reduced from claim of bad debts written oft and allowed u/s 36(1)(vii) for AY 2010-11. As discussed in the A.Y. 2005-06, issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2004-05. Respectfully following the same, we do not find any merit in the action of the lower authorities. 35. Ground No.2 is same as discussed in the A.Y. 2005-06 in para 10 & 11. Respectfully following the same, AO is directed to follow decision of High Court on this issue in all the years under consideration. 36....