Gujarat HC larger bench
rules that provision for bad and doubtful debts (‘PBDD’) when charged to
P&L account and at the same time, obliterated from account by reducing
"the corresponding amount from the loans and advances on the asset
side of the balance\
sheet" amounts to write-off and therefore not hit by clause (i) of the explanation to Sec. 115JB(2); Refers to SC ruling in Southern Technologies Ltd in context of Sec. 36(1)(vii) wherein it was held that "if an assessee debits provision for doubtful debt to the Profit and Loss account and makes a corresponding credit to the current liabilities and provisions on the liabilities side of the balance sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt" not entitled to SEc. 36(1)(vii) benefit; Also draws support from SC ruling in Vijay Bank wherein it was held that when assessee simultaneously obliterate such PBDD by reducing corresponding amount from loans and advances/debtors on asset side of balance sheet so that they are shown as net of PBDD, the deduction for write off of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) is allowable; Holds that there is no conflict between the two Gujarat HC division bench rulings of Deepak Nitrite Limited and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. rendered in context of treatment of PBDD while computing book-profits u/s. 115JB/JA, opines that both operate in different fields; Larger Bench clarifies that the judgment of Deepak Nitrite fell in the former category (i.e where mere provision is made by assessee by merely debiting P&L account and crediting PBDD), whereas the judgment of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.appears to fall in the latter category (i.e write off where simultaneously such provision for BDD is reduced from the loans and advances on the asset side of the balance sheet); Takes note of facts in present case involving AY 2003-04, wherein assessee had charged provision for bad and doubtful debts to P&L account and at the same time, reduced it from the gross debtors in the balance sheet, places the matter before division bench for decision accordingly:HC
sheet" amounts to write-off and therefore not hit by clause (i) of the explanation to Sec. 115JB(2); Refers to SC ruling in Southern Technologies Ltd in context of Sec. 36(1)(vii) wherein it was held that "if an assessee debits provision for doubtful debt to the Profit and Loss account and makes a corresponding credit to the current liabilities and provisions on the liabilities side of the balance sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt" not entitled to SEc. 36(1)(vii) benefit; Also draws support from SC ruling in Vijay Bank wherein it was held that when assessee simultaneously obliterate such PBDD by reducing corresponding amount from loans and advances/debtors on asset side of balance sheet so that they are shown as net of PBDD, the deduction for write off of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) is allowable; Holds that there is no conflict between the two Gujarat HC division bench rulings of Deepak Nitrite Limited and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. rendered in context of treatment of PBDD while computing book-profits u/s. 115JB/JA, opines that both operate in different fields; Larger Bench clarifies that the judgment of Deepak Nitrite fell in the former category (i.e where mere provision is made by assessee by merely debiting P&L account and crediting PBDD), whereas the judgment of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.appears to fall in the latter category (i.e write off where simultaneously such provision for BDD is reduced from the loans and advances on the asset side of the balance sheet); Takes note of facts in present case involving AY 2003-04, wherein assessee had charged provision for bad and doubtful debts to P&L account and at the same time, reduced it from the gross debtors in the balance sheet, places the matter before division bench for decision accordingly:HC
No comments:
Post a Comment