Allahabad Bank Vs. DCIT Banks eligible to claim deduction for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of advances and also claim provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia). To conclude, we hold that the provisions of Sections 36(1) (vii) and 36(1) (viia) of the Act are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. The bad debts written off in debts, other than those for which the provision is made under clause (viia), will be covered under the main part of Section 36(1) (vii), while the proviso will operate in cases under clause (viia) to limit deduction to the extent of difference between the debt or part thereof written off in the previous year and credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under clause (viia) . The proviso to Section 36(1) (vii) will relate to cases covered under Section 36(1) (viia) and has to be read with Section 36(2) (v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while under Section 36(1) (vii), the assessee would be entitled to general deduction upon an account having become bad debt and being written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year. This, obviously, would be subject to satisfaction of the requirements contemplated under Section 36.
, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in their decision dated 23.11.2011 ITA no. 302 of 2011 GA 3200/2011 in CIT Vs. Virgin Creations, held that that amendment to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 as aforesaid was retrospective from 1.4.2005. The ld. AR pointed out that this is the sole decision rendered by a High Court at the moment on the issue. Following the view in this decision, co-ordinate Bench in their decision dated 11.4.2012 in Piyush C. Mehta Vs. ACIT no.1321/Mum./2009 for the AY 2005-06 and the decision dated 10.5.2012 in ITA no. 717/Bang/2011for the AY 2008-09 in ACIT Vs. M.K. Gurumurthy also held that the aforesaid amendment is applicable retrospectively w.e.f 1.4.2005.
As per the definition of ‘person’ u/s 2(31), a minor is an assessable entity even though his income is clubbed u/s 64(1A) of the Act in the hands of his parents. A minor is a person distinct from his parents and is also an individual. There is no bar in separately allotting bonds upto Rs. 50,00,000 to each such person. There is no mentioned limit on the deduction allowable to an assessee under section 54EC.(The limit of Rs.50 lakhs is ceiling on investment that may be made by an assessee and not a ceiling on deduction that may be allowed to an assessee). Thus, AO was not right in disallowing deductions in respect of bonds invested by minor children of the assessee by applying the Rs.50 lakhs limit.
Directors of the company have undergone foreign travelling for the purpose of export and looking for the business avenues abroad. The details submitted by the assessee though only provides the date of travelling, details of country visited and amount of fare, visa charges and other miscellaneous expenses incurred, however, the Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to show that the foreign travelling was for personal purposes.
this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT Vs Rolta India Ltd. 330 ITR 470 wherein it has been held that in case of company which are liable to tax u/s. 115JB / minimum alternative tax , have to pay interest u/s. 234B/234C of the Act.
We have considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the said order dated 27-05-2011 of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2004-05 & 2007-08 (refer to supra). As it is noticed that the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case (refer to supra) in para 4 & 5 of the said order dated 27-05-11 has taken into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT –vs- Darshan Talkies [217 ITR 744] as also the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No.1689/Kol/2009 dated 26-11-2009 and the tribunal has dismissed the revenue’s appeals [in ITA Nos.2210 & 2211/Kol/2010] upholding the finding of the ld.CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to grant exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T Act, respectfully following the said order/decision dated 27/05/2011 of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2004-05 & 2007-08 (refer to supra) and as also as no contrary view has been taken by any superior authority and no contrary evidence has been placed before us by the revenue, the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stand confirmed. The issues of revenue’s appeal are dismissed.
Explanation-3 to section 43(1) says that where the AO is satisfied that the main purpose of the transfer of such assets to the assessee was the reduction of liability to income tax by claiming depreciation with a reference to an enhanced cost, then the actual cost to the assessee shall be such an amount as the AO may determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The facts of the case are that the assessee had leased its property at Vidyavihar to Minicon Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. (MIWPL) at Rs. 22,56,000, which in turn was leased out by MIWPL to various other parties, from which it was receiving rents of Rs. 1,59,34,618. The AO, relying on the orders of the preceding years, added the rents received by MIWPL at Rs. 1,59,34,618 in the hands of the assessee, holding that the rent agreement between the assessee and MIWPL was a sham, and the entire rent received by the company actually belonged to the assessee, as assessee and MIWPL are related parties.
We find that there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee was a ‘resident but not ordinarily resident’ for the relevant assessment year. The mere fact that she relocated to India on 29th May 2005 does not alter her residential status, so far Income Tax Act is concerned, with effect from that date. Quite fairly, learned Commissioner has also not specifically disputed this position even as he has laid lot of emphasis on the fact that she returned to India on 29th May 2005 and the fact that sale was concluded after that date i.e. 31st May 2005, but then nothing really turns on these facts because whether sales took place after assessee’s relocating to India or not, her residential status continues to be of the ‘resident but not ordinarily resident’ throughout the relevant previous year.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee while filing the return of income in response to the notice u/s 153A declared an additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs and, in alternative, claimed that the disallowance, if any, u/s 10A may be restricted to Rs. 40,24,656/- only instead of Rs. 64,24,656/-. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the issue held that the assessee is entitled to telescoping of Rs. 25 lakhs disclosed as additional income from the income determined by the A.O.
