Assessment was completed under S.\u00a0 143(3) of the Act . PCIT\u00a0 invoked revision jurisdiction under section 263 on four grounds; firstly, as per proviso provided to S.\u00a0 36(1) (viia) and 36(1)(vii) deductions towards bad debt written off was allowed over and above amount of provision for bad debts in books of account, as on first date of financial year; secondly, since assesee was maintaining its account on mercantile basis, advance payment towards contribution to gratuity fund which did not pertain to relevant assessment year, was not allowable in view of matching principles; thirdly, penalty payment made by assessee for violation of KYC norms to RBI would not be allowed under S.\u00a0 37(1) and; lastly, exact liability as regards provision for wage arrears made by assessee, was not ascertainable, thus, same was not allowable . On appeal the Appellate Tribunal held that all four issues questioned by PCIT were\u00a0 thoroughly examined by AO during\u00a0 assessment proceedings\u00a0 Assessee had also furnished a detailed reply to questions raised by AO regarding all four issues and after considering relevant facts and explanations furnished by assessee AO had\u00a0 chosen to accept claim of assessee. Accordingly\u00a0 it could not be said that AO had\u00a0 failed to carry out required enquiries which ought to be carried out in accordance with law . Accordingly revision order was quashed .\u00a0\u00a0 ( AY. 2014 -15)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Bad debt \u2013 Penalties \u2013 AO has called the relevant details in the course of assessment proceedings which were filed \u2013 Order of revision is held to be not valid . [ S.36(1) (vii) 37(1), 43B ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3lw","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12866","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12866"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12866\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12867,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12866\/revisions\/12867"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}