CIT v. Hewlett Packard India

314 ITR 55High Court2009#3234 most cited

What is CIT v. Hewlett Packard India authority for?

A provision for gratuity made on the basis of actuarial valuation is a revenue expenditure and allowable as a deduction in computing book profits for the purposes of section 115JB.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Hewlett Packard India · Section 115JB · provision for gratuity · actuarial valuation · revenue expenditure · book profit · unascertained liability

Also reported as

202 Taxmann 262

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 144BSection 14ASection 154Section 1961: Section 250(4)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

admission of additional evidencerule 46acapital expendituregenuineness of the transactioncommissioner (appeals)income-tax officersection 115unexplained cash creditsection 68scrutiny assessmentprevious yearsection 25

Judgments citing CIT v. Hewlett Packard India

Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 425/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT] – DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 37Section 37(1)

…on report of the actuarial valuer, the liability therefore crystallized and accrued in the relevant assessment year itself and was allowable deduction in that year. We further find that Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del) wherein the High Court while referring to decision of Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (supra) observed that since the provision for gratuity was made on the basis of actuarial valuation and hence, deduction in respect of provision was allowable while computing the book profit for the purposes of sect…

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1593/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)

…method followed by the assessee in making the provisions. If it is found to be reasonable and on a scientific criteria, then the AO shall not disallow the same.” It has been held likewise in the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd. [314 ITR 55 (Del)] 2. Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax [281 ITR 469 (Delhi)] 3. DCIT Vs. First Source Solution Ltd. [168 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 161] Prayer: In view of above submissions, it is submitted that all the conditions for recognizing a liability for the purposes of provisioning- which relates…

Bsc C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1592/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)

…method followed by the assessee in making the provisions. If it is found to be reasonable and on a scientific criteria, then the AO shall not disallow the same.” It has been held likewise in the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd. [314 ITR 55 (Del)] 2. Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax [281 ITR 469 (Delhi)] 3. DCIT Vs. First Source Solution Ltd. [168 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 161] Prayer: In view of above submissions, it is submitted that all the conditions for recognizing a liability for the purposes of provisioning- which relates…

Shri Mahesh Yadav, A-225, Jai Nagar, Sikar Road, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Jaipur, Ward-4(3)

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 590/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 590/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke Mahesh Yadav, Ito, Vs. A-225, Jai Nagar, Sikar Road, Ward-4(3), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aatpy 9371 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri C.L. Yadav (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 15/02/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Admitting The Additional Evidence Furnished During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings Under Rule 46A. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating The Issue On Merits. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 46,27,571/- Made By The Ao. On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposited In The Saving Bank Account, Ignoring

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 590/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2008-09 cuke Mahesh Yadav, ITO, Vs. A-225, Jai Nagar, Sikar Road, Ward-4(3), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AATPY 9371 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri C.L. Yadav (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT) lqu…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…tific basis for meeting its future liabilities, then such provision is allowable as a deduction: a) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (S.C) b) Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (S.C) c) CIT vs. Hewelett Packard India (P) Ltd 314 ITR 55 (Delhi) d) Aggarwal ad Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 469 (Del.) Page 20 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. e) DCIT vs. Vs. First Solutions Ltd (2018) 168 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib.) 161 14. The learned DR, on the other hand placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…tific basis for meeting its future liabilities, then such provision is allowable as a deduction: a) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (S.C) b) Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (S.C) c) CIT vs. Hewelett Packard India (P) Ltd 314 ITR 55 (Delhi) d) Aggarwal ad Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 469 (Del.) Page 20 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. e) DCIT vs. Vs. First Solutions Ltd (2018) 168 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib.) 161 14. The learned DR, on the other hand placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…tific basis for meeting its future liabilities, then such provision is allowable as a deduction: a) Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (S.C) b) Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (S.C) c) CIT vs. Hewelett Packard India (P) Ltd 314 ITR 55 (Delhi) d) Aggarwal ad Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 469 (Del.) Page 20 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. e) DCIT vs. Vs. First Solutions Ltd (2018) 168 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib.) 161 14. The learned DR, on the other hand placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. D.B. Corp. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2880/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…e]: • CIT v Balarampur Chini Mills Limited [316 ITR 374] [Cal] d. In respect of provision for doubtful debts/advances [illustrative]: • HCL Comnet Systems [305 ITR 409] [SC]; • Eicher Ltd [159 Taxman 293] [DEL]; • CIT v Hewlett Packard India Private Limited [314 ITR 55] [DEL] At the outset, it is submitted that the AO has not challenged/disallowed the (i) provision for deferred tax (ii) provision for doubtful debts and (iii) provision for doubtful advances on merits i.e. the additions/adjustments to the book profit computed under Section 115JB of the Act have been made only by relying upon the retrospective amen…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jitf Waterways Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6616/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Jitf Waterways Ltd., Circle-13(2), Jindal Tif Centre, New Delhi. 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jitf Waterways Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Jindal Tif Centre, Circle-13(2), 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Shri Asnshul Sachar & Karan Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.Dr & Smt. Naina Soin Kopil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; and Shri Asnshul Sachar &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR &
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…of the case. 6. The ld. counsel also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Bhagat Steel & Forging (P) ltd. 52, taxmann.com 28 (Del); ii) CIT vs. Virgin Securities and Credits (P) Ltd., 20 taxmann.com 681 (Del); iii) CIT vs. Hewlett Packard India, 314 ITR 55 (Del); iv) CIT vs. Chandra Kant Chanu Bhai Patel, 202 Taxman 262 (Del); v) CIT vs. Betterways Finance, ITA No.995 of 2009 (Delhi HC); and vi) CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.2077, 2061 and 2065/2010 (Del). 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find the…

M/S. Jitf Waterways Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5810/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Jitf Waterways Ltd., Circle-13(2), Jindal Tif Centre, New Delhi. 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jitf Waterways Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Jindal Tif Centre, Circle-13(2), 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Shri Asnshul Sachar & Karan Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.Dr & Smt. Naina Soin Kopil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; and Shri Asnshul Sachar &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR &
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…of the case. 6. The ld. counsel also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Bhagat Steel & Forging (P) ltd. 52, taxmann.com 28 (Del); ii) CIT vs. Virgin Securities and Credits (P) Ltd., 20 taxmann.com 681 (Del); iii) CIT vs. Hewlett Packard India, 314 ITR 55 (Del); iv) CIT vs. Chandra Kant Chanu Bhai Patel, 202 Taxman 262 (Del); v) CIT vs. Betterways Finance, ITA No.995 of 2009 (Delhi HC); and vi) CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.2077, 2061 and 2065/2010 (Del). 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find the…

Crm Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 1161/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1161/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect.” (emphasis supplied). Reliance is also placed in that regard on the following decisions: CIT v. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del HC) CIT v. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del HC) CIT v. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del HC) Jatia Investment Co v. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal HC) Electra (Jaipur) Ltd v. IAC: 26 ITD 236 (Del ITAT) Y. W. C. A. of India vs IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del ITAT) The applicant, it is respectfully submitted, in the course of the proceedings bef…

Control Risks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1098/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 92C

…also may be restored. Prayer for admitting fresh evidence in the facts of the present case was also justified on the basis of the following decisions namely CIT vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. 239 CTR 263 (Delhi High Court); CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del HC); CIT Vs. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del HC); CIT Vs. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del HC); Jatia Investment Co V. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal Hon'ble HC); Electra (Jaipur) Ltd. Vs. IAC: 26 ITD 236 (Del ITAT); and Y.W.C. A of India Vs. IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del ITAT). 3. The Ld. Sr. DR did not have any objection either to th…

Control Risks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 979/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…handmaid of Justice and Justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or oral omission on the part of the parties and the evidence may be taken into consideration. Reliance is also placed on CIT Vs. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del HC); CIT Vs. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del HC); CIT Vs. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del HC); Jatia Investment Co V. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal Hon'ble HC); Electra (Jaipur) Ltd. Vs. IAC: 26 ITD 236 (Del ITAT); and Y.W.C. A of India Vs. IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del ITAT). 6.9. Accordingly, it was his submission that by allowing…

M/S. Dhv Global Engineering Center Bv, Noida vs. DDIT, Noida

In the result, assessee’s appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2300/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Kuldip Singh :Asstt. Yr: 2009-10 & Ita Nos. 1238 & 1239/Del/2015 Asstt. Yrs: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dhv Global Engineering Vs. Dcit International Taxation, Center Bv Noida. 14 Block-1, Sdf, Noida, Special Economic Zone, Noida. Pan: Aaccd 0804 G ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain Adv. Ms. Deepika Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Amrendra Kumar Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2016. Date Of Order : 24/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…eeds to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect”. (emphasis supplied) Reliance is also placed in that regard on the following decisions: - CIT v. Hewlett Packard India: 314 ITR 55 (Del HC) - CIT v. Chandra Kant Sahu Bhai: 202 Taxman 262 (Del HC) - CIT v. Betterways Finance: ITA 995 of 2009 (Del HC) - Jatia Investment Co v. CIT: 206 ITR 718 (Cal HC) - Electra (Jaipur) Ltd v. IAC: 26 ITD 236 (Del. ITAT) - Y. W. C. A. of India vs IAC: 29 ITD 620 (Del IT AT) Your Honour's attention is also invited to the decision of Mumbai Benc…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Betterways Finance & Leasing P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA/995/2009HC Delhi24 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 46

…ITAs No.995/2009 Page 1 of 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.995/2009 % Date of Decision: 24.05.2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX …. APPELLANT Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr,Deepak Anand, Advocate Versus BETTERWAYS FINANCE & LEASING PVT. LTD. …. RESPONDENT Through: Mr.M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr.V.P. Gupta and Mr.Basant Kumar and Ms.Husnali Syali, Advocates for the respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether reporters of Local papers be allowed to see th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Betterways Finance & Leasing P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA - 995 / 2009HC Delhi24 May 2011
Section 46

…ITAs No.995/2009 Page 1 of 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.995/2009 % Date of Decision: 24.05.2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX …. APPELLANT Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr,Deepak Anand, Advocate Versus BETTERWAYS FINANCE & LEASING PVT. LTD. …. RESPONDENT Through: Mr.M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr.V.P. Gupta and Mr.Basant Kumar and Ms.Husnali Syali, Advocates for the respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether reporters of Local papers be allowed to see th…

C.I.T vs. Ilpea Paramount (P) Ltd

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

ITA/1178/2008HC Delhi18 Feb 2010
For Appellant: Ms P. L. Bansal with Ms Anshul SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Poonam Ahuja with Ms Mahima Agrawal
Section 115J

…btful 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 Exp…