CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd.

305 ITR 409Supreme Court of India2008#901 most cited

What is CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. authority for?

For computing book profits under Section 115JB, an Assessing Officer's power is limited to examining duly certified books and making adjustments only as per the Explanation. A provision for bad and doubtful debts, being a diminution in the value of an asset (receivable), does not constitute a 'provision for liability' under Clause (c) of the Explanation and therefore cannot be added back.

118

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. · 305 ITR 409 · Section 115JB · Section 115JA · book profit calculation · provision for bad and doubtful debts · MAT adjustments · Assessing Officer jurisdiction · provision for liability · Explanation to Section 115JB(2) · diminution in asset value

Also reported as

174 Taxmann 118

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 135Section 194HSection 40(a)(ia)Section 115JA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 226section 115jasection 211section 14a(1)section 135section 115jb(2)explanation to section 37book profitsperiod of holdingsection 114section 115jsection 80hhc

Judgments citing CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd.

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appe

ITA 1607/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit-3(4), Tata Motors Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Bombay House 24 Homi Mody Street, Vs. Trade Centre, Cuffe Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai G.P.O. Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaact 2727 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora a/w Mr. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 115J

…yable by the assessee vis-à-vis debts receivable by vis debts receivable by the assessee in the cited case of CIT Vs. HCL Commet the assessee in the cited case of CIT Vs. HCL Commet the assessee in the cited case of CIT Vs. HCL Commet Systems & Services Ltd. [305 ITR 409] in the following Systems & Services Ltd. [305 ITR 409] in the following Systems & Services Ltd. [305 ITR 409] in the following manner: - As stated above, the said Explanation has provided As stated above, the said Explanation has provided As stated above, the said Explanation has provided six items, i.e., Item Nos.(a) to (f) which if debited to…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2017-18 M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. cuke The Pr. CIT CP-3-235,Industrial Area, Apparel Park, Vs. Jaipur -1 Jaipur. Mahal Road, Jagatpura, Jaipurm- 302022 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACL 2777 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sanja…

Acc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…and the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs Usha Martin Industries. Since the facts are the same I follow the decisions, and allow the ground of appeal. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd, 305 ITR 409 will also support the issue. My decision in the earlier ground also will be relevant in this regard.” 79. Against the observation of Ld.CIT(A), department has filed this ground in this appeal. Before us, Ld. AR has relied upon appellate order passed in its own case for A.Y. 2002-03 to 2004-05 and contended that no such adjustment is required to b…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Acc Limited, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…and the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs Usha Martin Industries. Since the facts are the same I follow the decisions, and allow the ground of appeal. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd, 305 ITR 409 will also support the issue. My decision in the earlier ground also will be relevant in this regard.” 79. Against the observation of Ld.CIT(A), department has filed this ground in this appeal. Before us, Ld. AR has relied upon appellate order passed in its own case for A.Y. 2002-03 to 2004-05 and contended that no such adjustment is required to b…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 720/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Lid. (2008] Lid. (2008] 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that provision for doubtful debt is a provision against provision for doubtful debt is a provision against provision for doubtful debt is a provision against diminution of the asset and, therefore, same could not diminution of the…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 719/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Lid. (2008] Lid. (2008] 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that provision for doubtful debt is a provision against provision for doubtful debt is a provision against provision for doubtful debt is a provision against diminution of the asset and, therefore, same could not diminution of the…

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 652/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Lid. (2008] Lid. (2008] 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that provision for doubtful debt is a provision against provision for doubtful debt is a provision against provision for doubtful debt is a provision against diminution of the asset and, therefore, same could not diminution of the…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 1424/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Lid. (2008] Lid. (2008] 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that 305 ITR 409 / 174 Taxman 118 by holding that provision for doubtful debt is a provision against provision for doubtful debt is a provision against provision for doubtful debt is a provision against diminution of the asset and, therefore, same could not diminution of the…

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm.of Income Tax 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2422/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Greatship (India) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., C/O, Kalyaniwalla Of Income Tax -5(1)(1) Mistry Llp, Esplanade Room No. 568, Aayakar House, 29, Hazarimal Bhavan, M.K. Road, Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcg8542K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Asif Karmali
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 928Section 92C

…T Vs. Woco Motherson Advances Rubber Technologies Ltd. (406 ITR 375) (Gujarat HC) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT (255 ITR 273) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Comnet System & Services Ltd. (305 ITR 409) (SC). 16. Heard both the sides on this issue and we find that AO has neither made any discussion nor proposed any addition in the draft assessment order pertaining to making adjustment in the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and also made no discussion or addition in the final assessment order. Therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble High C…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Room No. 902, 9th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) v. M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Room No. 902, 9th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) v. M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi…

Yash Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3217/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Yash Developers, Dcit-27(3), 1St Flr Anand, 7Th Road, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Maryland Apartment, D.K. Vs. Station Complex, Sandhu Marg, Chembur, Vashi-400703 Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaafy 6171 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harmesh Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Mandar Vaidya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harmesh Lal, DR
Section 154

…made to overcome the decision of amendment was made to overcome the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet System & Services (2008) 305 ITR 409 (SC). I Comnet System & Services (2008) 305 ITR 409 (SC). I Comnet System & Services (2008) 305 ITR 409 (SC). It is an admitted and undisputed position that the issue is an admitted and undisputed position that the issue is an admitted and undisputed position that the issue of the book profit to be increased by the provision of the book profit to…

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. CIT, Ltu-A, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2144/CHNY/2008[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2144/Chny/2008 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 1998-99 M/S.Ashok Leyland Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner – No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Of Income Tax Guindy, Company Circle-I (1), Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…essee and deleted the additions made towards book profit computed u/s.115JA of the Act, towards provision for bad and doubtful debts by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., reported in 305 ITR 409. The Revenue challenged the order of the Tribunal in further appeal u/s.260-A of the Act, before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The High Court of Judicature at Madras vide their order dated 30.11.2022, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the issue back to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to re-consider the issue of co…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3786/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…and the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs Usha Martin Industries. Since the facts are the same I follow the decisions, and allow the ground of appeal. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd, 305 ITR 409 will also support the issue. My decision in the earlier ground also will be relevant in this regard.” 49 ITA NO.3490& 3786/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2005-06) M/s. ACC Limited 79. Against the observation of Ld.CIT(A), department has filed this ground in this appeal. Before us, Ld. AR has relied upon appellate order passed in its own case for A.Y. 2002-03 to…

Acc Ltd (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3490/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…and the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs Usha Martin Industries. Since the facts are the same I follow the decisions, and allow the ground of appeal. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd, 305 ITR 409 will also support the issue. My decision in the earlier ground also will be relevant in this regard.” 49 ITA NO.3490& 3786/MUM/2009 (A.Y: 2005-06) M/s. ACC Limited 79. Against the observation of Ld.CIT(A), department has filed this ground in this appeal. Before us, Ld. AR has relied upon appellate order passed in its own case for A.Y. 2002-03 to…

Raymond Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl C.I.T. -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2660/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

…tion 2 to section 115JB of the Act with the observation that doubtful debts claimed by the assessee is unascertained liability. However, he brought to our notice decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. [305 ITR 409]. Further, he submitted that new clause (i) was inserted to the explanation (1) to section 115JB as 18 ITA NO. 2660& 2519/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Raymond Limited per which “the amount or amounts set-aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset”, and he brought to our notice Page No. 100 of the Paper Book to submit that assesse…

M/S. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2519/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

…tion 2 to section 115JB of the Act with the observation that doubtful debts claimed by the assessee is unascertained liability. However, he brought to our notice decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. [305 ITR 409]. Further, he submitted that new clause (i) was inserted to the explanation (1) to section 115JB as 18 ITA NO. 2660& 2519/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2002-03) M/s. Raymond Limited per which “the amount or amounts set-aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset”, and he brought to our notice Page No. 100 of the Paper Book to submit that assesse…

Natural Remedies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(2)

…reduction in value of asset and not creation of a liability, therefore this item will not fall under the above clause (c). The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., 305 ITR 409 (SC). The ld. AR also submitted that provision for bad & doubtful debt shall not fall under clause (i) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of section 115JB. Since in assessee’s case, the said provision is reduced from the balance of sundry debtors that would amount to actual write off which would not be hit by the provisions of Explanation 1 to s…

Sutlej Textiles and Industries Ltd., Rajasthan vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3703/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 115JSection 147

…sessee that the ‘provisions for doubtful debts’ cannot be termed as unascertained liabilities in the light of the I.T.A. No.3703 & 3371/DEL/2015 9 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., as reported in 305 ITR 409 (SC). The plea of the assessee being the tune of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find merit in the plea of the assessee. A debt being an asset and not a liability, consequential provisions on account of doubtful recovery cannot be alleged to be an unascertained liability as correctly pleaded. Thus, no adjustment was required as per…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sutlej Textiles and Industries Ltd., Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3371/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 115JSection 147

…sessee that the ‘provisions for doubtful debts’ cannot be termed as unascertained liabilities in the light of the I.T.A. No.3703 & 3371/DEL/2015 9 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., as reported in 305 ITR 409 (SC). The plea of the assessee being the tune of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find merit in the plea of the assessee. A debt being an asset and not a liability, consequential provisions on account of doubtful recovery cannot be alleged to be an unascertained liability as correctly pleaded. Thus, no adjustment was required as per…