C.I.T vs. ILPEA PARAMOUNT (P) LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1178/2008HC Delhi18 February 20103 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the provision for gratuity was correctly deleted from book profit. However, due to a retrospective amendment to Section 115JA, provisions for doubtful debts and advances are now includible in book profit.

What were the facts?

The assessee made provisions for doubtful debts, doubtful advances, and gratuity. The Assessing Officer added these provisions to the book profit for computation under Section 115JA. The Tribunal deleted these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether provisions for doubtful debts, doubtful advances, and gratuity are includible in book profit for the purpose of Section 115JA, considering retrospective amendments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 11 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 18.02.2010

+ ITA 1178/2008

C.I.T

... Appellant

- versus –

ILPEA PARAMOUNT (P) LTD

... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Appellant

: Ms P. L. Bansal with Ms Anshul Sharma For the Respondent : Ms Poonam Ahuja with Ms Mahima Agrawal

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed

to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. We have heard the counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the Tribunal’s order dated 11.01.2008 in ITA No. 2340/Del/2003 relating to the assessment year 2000-2001. The following substantial question of law arises for our consideration:- (a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by including provision for doubtful debts, provision for doubtful advances and provision for gratuity made by the assessee to the book profit while making computation u/s 115JA of the Act?

2.

The above question is a composite question and includes three l t 2010:DHC:983-DB

(i) provision for doubtful debts; (ii) provision for doubtful advances; and (iii) provision for gratuity

3.

Insofar as the provision for gratuity is concerned, the issue stands decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by virtue of a decision of this Court in CIT v. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del).

4.

The questions with regard to the provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances have to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee because of the retrospective amendment introduced in Section 115JA of the said Act. By virtue of Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, clause (g) has been inserted in the Explanation contained in Section 115JA (2). By virtue of the said amendment, the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset, is specifically mentioned. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services: 305 ITR 409 held that provision for doubtful debts and doubtful advances did not fall within clause (c) of the said Explanation inasmuch as they amounted to provision in respect of diminution in the value of asset.

5.

Now, with the introduction of the said amendment with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998, the provision for doubtful debts and the provision for doubtful advances, which are nothing but provision for diminution in the value of asset, are specifically covered under clause (g) of the said Explanation. Consequently, the question insofar as it relates to provision for 2010:DHC:983-DB

doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances, requires to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. It is so answered.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J FEBRUARY 18, 2010 SR

2010:DHC:983-DB

More judgments on Section 115JA

All 209 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →