CPT V24P7-Art1 (Content).pmd - Taxmann

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Direct Tax Laws Whether banks have to maintain identity of the bad debts written off in case of rural branches and other branches and adjust the write off relating to rural advances in the provision account maintained as per section 36(1)(viia) and the write offs relating to non-rural branches being eligible for deduction separately under section 36(1)(vii), read with section 36(2)? DECISION OF THE COURT 5. The Apex Court held that sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are separate items of deduction. They are independent provisions and cannot be intermingled or read into each other. It is a well-settled canon of interpretation of fiscal statutes that they need to be construed strictly and on their plain reading. Section 36(viia) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1979 w.e.f. 1-4-1980 and the scope of the provision was explained by the CBDT vide its Circular No. 258, dated 14-6-1979 in which it was explained that the provisions were introduced to promote rural banking and assist the scheduled commercial banks in making adequate provision out of their current profits in order to provide for risks in respect of rural advances. Clause 13.3 of the Circular states that the deduction on account of provision for doubtful debts, is distinct and independent of section 36(1)(vii) relating to allowance of deduction for bad debts. The scheduled commercial banks would continue to get the benefit of writing off of irrecoverable debts as per section 36(1)(vii) in addition to the benefit of deduction of the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia). The Court observed that it is inclined to give an interpretation which would serve the legislative object and intent, rather than subverting the same. It held that the language of section 36(1)(vii) is unambiguous and does not provide for dual interpretation. However, this benefit of bad debts write off is subject to satisfaction of conditions contained in section 658 August 1 to 15, 2012 u TAXMANN’S CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS TODAY u Vol. 24 u 38 36(2). The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) does not control the application of the section, since the proviso could apply only when the case of the assessee is covered by section 36(1)(viia) (applicable for scheduled banking companies). The Apex Court held that in respect of nonrural advances, section 36(1)(viia) relating to maintenance of provision will not apply. So, any debt written off as irrecoverable is deductible under section 36(1)(vii) and such claim is not controlled by section 36(1)(viia). With regard to rural advances, the assessees’, i.e., banks are obliged to maintain a provision. Bad debts written off in respect of rural advances have to be adjusted against the provision maintained by the assessee. Only where the bad debts written off exceed the provision maintained, such excess is deductible and is covered by the proviso to section 36(1)(vii). The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) protects the interests of the Revenue. For rural advances, which are covered by clause (viia) there would be no double deduction. The proviso limits the deduction towards bad debt write off by allowing the claim only when the write off relating to rural advances exceeds the provision maintained. The Apex Court also observed that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court ignored a significant expression appearing in both the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2)(v), i.e., ‘assessee to which clause (viia) of subsection (1) applies’. Thus, where the claim does not fall under section 36(1)(viia) (i.e., provision for bad and doubtful debts), section 36(1)(vii) will not apply. Chief Justice of the Apex Court in his separate concurrent view held that where the bad debt write off in respect of rural advances exceeds the provision, such excess alone is deductible and this situation is taken care of by the proviso to clause (vii). He observed that the proviso indicates that it is limited in its application to bad debts arising out of rural advances of a
ank. It follows that if the amount of bad debt actually written off relates to urban advances, such claim is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso to clause (vii). CONCLUSION 6. The decision of the Apex Court provides finality and would be binding in nature. In simple terms, bad debts written off relating to urban advances are eligible for deduction as per section 36(1)(vii), read with section 36(2). It is not controlled by section 36(1)(viia). In respect of rural advances for which the banks are expected to maintain a provision towards bad and doubtful debts, any bad debt written off will be adjusted only in the provision account. Only when the bad debt write off claim exceeds the provision maintained by the assessee such an excess is deductible and it is mandatory as per the proviso to section 36(1)(vii). The decision provides a conceptual clarity and would set at rest the controversy surrounding these two sub-sections. The proviso contained in section 36(1)(vii) if it was incorporated in section 36(1)(viia) the confusion or controversy might have been avoided. Similarly, the Explanation to section 36(1)(viia) saying that the deduction is in addition to section 36(1)(vii) would have eliminated any controversy whatsoever on this issue. • DT - Secs. 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia), 36(2) ••• August 1 to 15, 2012 u TAXMANN’S CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS TODAY u Vol. 24 u 39 659
Page 3 and 4: August 1 to 15, 2012 u TAXMANN’S
Page 5 and 6: Accounts & Audit 701 707 FOUNDER ED
Page 7 and 8: INTRODUCTION Vodafone story - 1. On
Page 9 and 10: and the capital gains on transfer o
Page 11 and 12: used to introduce new rules of law,
Page 13 and 14: for earning tax exempt income. Howe
Page 15 and 16: of the hearing before the Tribunal
Page 17 and 18: (P.) Ltd.’s (supra) before the IT
Page 19 and 20: the ITAT Rules, 1946, vis-à-vis th
Page 21 and 22: Two recent instances of such practi
Page 23 and 24: ut CIT(A) are not bothered by any s
Page 25 and 26: say, twice the latter amount or mor
Page 27 and 28: Taxing the Expenditure on Litigatio
Page 29 and 30: PENALTY CHARGES FOR BREACH OF LAW C
Page 31 and 32: Exclusive Owner v. Joint Owner DIRE
Page 33 and 34: to agree with the assessee’s cont
Page 35 and 36: Retrospective Amendments - Courts D
Page 37 and 38: Court and if such party is still ag
Page 39: of the Act. It will not apply to de
Page 43 and 44: This article aims to study various
Page 45 and 46: The true profits of the insurance b
Page 47 and 48: expenditure or allowance which is n
Page 49 and 50: the same have not yet been adopted
Page 51 and 52: 48. General Insurance Corpn. of Ind
Page 53 and 54: of income as declared by the assess
Page 55 and 56: NGOs undertake many kinds of charit
Page 57 and 58: in the above judgment observed that
Page 59 and 60: ground not raised earlier in appeal
Page 61 and 62: As per section 145 of the IT Act bu
Page 63 and 64: enhanced rates shown as receipts in
Page 65 and 66: a common passage, common kitchen, e
Page 67 and 68: The Tribunal concluded the decision
Page 69 and 70: ent free accommodation was not bein
Page 71 and 72: (c) Lease rental shall be paid at t
Page 73 and 74: of the above definition, the assess
Page 75 and 76: The High Court held in favour of as
Page 77 and 78: ‘Approach road’ treated as a pa
Page 79 and 80: or any form in which such Director
Page 81 and 82: invests in a fair manner. Generally
Page 83 and 84: Disclosure of Borrowings under Revi
Page 85 and 86: RELEVANT GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY THE I
Page 87 and 88: 5.1.3 Maturity profile of unsecured
Page 89 and 90: ACCOUNTS & AUDIT IN BRIEF A Fortnig
Page 91 and 92:
cost savings, greater efficiency, i
Page 93 and 94:
8.2 Summary - IESBA has released th
Page 95 and 96:
equirements but of late has receive
Page 97 and 98:
Gram Yojana. Additionally, other sc
show all

CPT V24P7-Art1 (Content).pmd - Taxmann

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?