Vijaya Bank v. CIT

Maya Entertainment Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Maya Entertainment Ltd., V. The Asstt. Cit – 11(1) Room No. 467, 4Th Floor, 23, Shah Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off. Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

…in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in holding that what is 'writing of bad and doubtful debts' and what is 'provision for doubtful debts' was not a debatable issue prior to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166, dated 15.4.2010 and therefore, Assessing Officer could pass rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act in respect of this matter. 2) Learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case in holding that as the issue that procedure adopted by assessee in respect of bad and doubtful debts tantamount to write off of bad and do…

Carol Info Service Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…t of assessee is inaccordance with the law in so far as assessee has written off the debt as debtors are reduced and P & L account is also debited. The assessee’s claim of bad debts is also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166, Bombay High Court in case of Essar Teleholdings Ltd., 51 Taxmann.com 499. 7. In view of the above, we direct the AO to allow assessee’s claim of Bad debts of Rs.89,70,000/-. 8. AO has also disallowed provision of doubtful advances of Rs.11.87 Crores. AO has dealt with the issue at para 2 page 1 to 5 and CIT(A) on page 3 to 4 para 4.1. From the r…

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4448/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mangalore Refinery & Addl Cit 3(2) Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Tower, E- Vs. Wing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4436/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit-3(2) Mangalore Refinery & Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. बिधम/ 15Th Floor, Maker Aayakarbhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Tower, E-Wing, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm5132A अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Madhur Agrawal /Ronak Desai प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Samuel Darse सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08/06/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4448/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mangalore Refinery & ADDL CIT 3(2) Petrochemicals Ltd. Mumbai बिधम/ 15th Floor, Maker Tower, E- Vs. wing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACM5132A & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4436/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2008-09) DCIT-3(2) Mangalore Refinery & Room No. 674, 6th Floor, Petrochemicals Ltd. बिधम/ 15th Floor, Maker AayakarBhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Tower, E-wing, Cuffe Vs. Pa…

Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Icici Securities Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Centre, H.T. Parekh Income Tax Range Vs. Marg, Churchgate, 4(1), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaaci0996E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr

…115JB of the Act? On the above questions of law, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: “3. In so far as question (c) is concerned, the Tribunal by impugned order has followed the decision or the Apex Court in the matter of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. CIT[2010] 323 ITR 166/190 Taxman 257, wherein it has been held that once the provision of doubtful debt has been debited to the profit and loss account and corresponding provision has been credited or reduced from the debtors account in the balance-sheet, then, this would amount to writing off. In the present case, the Tribunal recorded a finding of facts that the res…

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Teksons P.Ltd, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C Nagendra Prasad & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12

…ebts can be added back while computing book profits in accordance with clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act as unascertained liabilities. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166 held that if the bad debt or the doubtful debt is reduced from the loans and advances or debts from the asset side of the balance sheet, the explanation to section 115JA or JB is not at all attracted. The relevant portion is as under: “8. In the present case, the debt is an amount receivable by the assessee and not any liability payable by the a…

Cmi Fpe Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…the said provision from current assets disclosed in the balance sheet. On these facts, it is argued that clause (i) of Explanation (1) of section 115JB of the Act, cannot be applied in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank v/s CIT, 323 ITR 166 (SC), as interpreted by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v/s Yokogawa India Ltd., [2012] 204 Taxman 305 (Kar.). 11. The learned Departmental Representative, while agreeing with the propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in its judgment cited supra wherein the Hon’ble Court has dealt with an identical issue and the same…

Addl.C.I.T. RG.3(3), Mumbai vs. Aavaran Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Addl. Cit Range 3(3) Aavaram Textiles Pvt Ltd., Mumbai 81-A, Mittal Court, बनाम/ 224 Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…would constitute a setting aside a provision for doubtful debt. In the later case, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction after April 1, 1989. 4.35 Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank V. CIT 323 ITR 166, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided on the following question: Whether it is imperative for the assessee-bank to close the individual account of each of its debtors in its books or a mere reduction in the loans and advances or debtors on the assets side of its balance sheet to the extent of the provision for bad debt would be sufficien…

Mediaedge Cia India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ount of bad and doubtful debt to the Profit & Loss account and credits the asset side like sundry debtors account, it would constitute a write–off of an actual debt. Referring to the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank v/s CIT, [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC) held that if the assessee besides debiting the Profit & Loss account and creating provisions for bad and doubtful debt, had simultaneously obliterated the said provision from its accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from loans and advances / debtors 5 M/s. Mediaedge Cin India Ltd. on the asset side of the Balance Sheet and consequ…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…r the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds: 1. The appellant submits that it is 'entitled to a deduction for write off of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Limited (323 ITR 166). It is submitted that necessary directions may be given to the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of write-off bad debts. 2. The appellant submits that the recovery of bad debts written off should not be liable to tax under section 41 (4) as the appellant had not claimed a deduction under section 36(1)(vii), as held by the Bangalore Tribunal i…

ACIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…r the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds: 1. The appellant submits that it is 'entitled to a deduction for write off of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Limited (323 ITR 166). It is submitted that necessary directions may be given to the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of write-off bad debts. 2. The appellant submits that the recovery of bad debts written off should not be liable to tax under section 41 (4) as the appellant had not claimed a deduction under section 36(1)(vii), as held by the Bangalore Tribunal i…

D.C.I.T. RG.3(3), Mumbai vs. Reliance Welfare Association, Mumbai

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Reliance Welfare Tax Circle 3(3) Association Circle Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Maker Chambers Iv, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan:Aaacr6115N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…would constitute a setting aside a provision for doubtful debt. In the later case, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction after April 1, 1989. 4.35 Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank V. CIT 323 ITR 166, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided on the following question: A.Y.2008-09 Whether it is imperative for the assessee-bank to close the individual account of each of its debtors in its books or a mere reduction in the loans and advances or debtors on the assets side of its balance sheet to the extent of the provision for bad debt would…

ACIT -2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO stands dismissed

…advances, the deduction on account of the actual write off of bad debts would be limited to excess of the amount written off over the amount of the provision which had already been allowed u/s 36(1) (viia) (Southern Technologies 320 ITR 577 (SC) & Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166 (SC) referred). 10. In that case the Apex Court has held that the bank would be entitled to both the deductions, one under Clause (vii) on the basis of actual write off and another on the basis of clause (viia) in respect of mere provision. Further to prevent to double deduction, proviso to clause (vii) was inserted which says that in respect of…