Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the court held that , when the AO passed the assessment order provision for bad and doubtful debt was clearly a deductible amount for the purpose of section 115JA of the Act. ( CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services L td. [2008] 305 ITR 409 (SC) ) Parliament amended Explanation 1 to section 115JB by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 ([2009] 314 ITR (St.) 57). The amendment had retrospective effect from April 1, 2001. However, the reassessment notice was issued on March 31, 2008 and on that date, the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above which was delivered on September 23, 2008 was holding the field. The relevant particulars and details on the basis of which the claim for deduction was made by the assessing authority for the assessment year 2003-04 were very much available at the time of original assessment order passed by the assessing authority on March 10, 2006. The notice of reassessment to withdraw the deduction was not valid.( AY. 2003-04)
CIT v. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. (2020) 422 ITR 417 /193 DTR 399/ 317 CTR 468/ 269 Taxman 610 (Mad)(HC)
S.147: Reassessment —Book profit – Provision for bad and doubtful debt- Oder of the AO was in accordance with the judgement of the Supreme Court – Subsequent retrospective amendment withdrawing deduction — Notice based on amendment is held to be not valid .[ S. 115JA , 115JB 148 ]