HARYANA STATE INDL. DEV. CORP LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/67/2004HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051588200423 November 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, engaged in developing industrial estates, filed its return for assessment year 1995-96. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 19,77,535/- as a provision for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Additionally, there was a credit balance of Rs. 9,88,844/- in the provision for bad and doubtful debts from prior years. The Assessing Officer allowed bad debts of Rs. 1,10,53,000/- but disallowed the provision of Rs. 19,77,535/- and the prior year's credit balance of Rs. 9,88,844/-. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 4,35,03,060/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance. The assessee filed an appeal before the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 19,77,535/-. The Tribunal's finding that the provision for bad and doubtful debts made during the year under Section 36(1)(viia) had to be reduced from the actual bad debts claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) was upheld. The Court reasoned that the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) limits the deduction for bad debts to the amount by which such debt exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under Section 36(1)(viia). As of March 31, 1995, the total credit balance in the provision account, including the current year's provision, was Rs. 29,66,379/-. The Tribunal correctly interpreted that the deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) is available only to the extent of bad debts written off that exceed this credit balance. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 19,77,535/- was confirmed. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 19,77,535/- claimed as a deduction, considering that Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(1)(viia) operate independently? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(1)(viia) are separate and distinct provisions. The assessee also contended that when there is no adverse judgment, the interpretation favoring the assessee, based on the objects of the section and CBDT circulars, should be adopted. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not explicitly record arguments, but their position was upheld by the lower authorities, implying they supported the disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(vii),Section 36(1)(viia),Section 36(2)(v),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appeal No. 67 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Income-tax Appeal No. 67 of 2004 Date of decision: 23.11.2010 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation --- Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Panchkula. --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ---- PRESENT:Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. ---- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act’”) has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.8.2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 316/CHANDI/98 relating to the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee has claimed the following questions for determination by this Court:

Income Tax Appeal No. 67 of 2004 2 a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 36(1) (vii), 36(1) (vii-a), the Tribunal is justified in upholding the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(vii)

All 1,410 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →