Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that the assessee had made investment in its subsidiary company in order to expand its business with a view to earn higher profit and therefore, the investment was driven by business expediency. Loss is allowable followed,  PCIT v. Vaibhav Global Ltd  (I. T. A. No. 53 of 2021 dated 15-12-2021) (Raj)(HC). The assessee had written back the provisions and then written it off and had held that therefore, for the year under consideration, this amount should not have been added back for computing the income under the provisions of section 115JB since it would amount to double disallowance. followed CIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat ltd (2017) 397 ITR 55 (Guj)(HC). On the issue of disallowance out of provision for doubtful loans to the assessee’s subsidiary the Tribunal had only remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer and decisions have also been rendered on such remand and therefore, no question of law arose. (AY. 2009-10)