The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Gillette India Ltd

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 900 / 2008 The Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus M/S Gillette India Ltd. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Ms. Archana _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHURJudgment 22/05/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partlyallowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal ofthe department. 2.This Court while admitting the matter framed the followingquestion of law:- “(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law the Tribunal was justified indirecting to exclude Rs. 1,78,17,769/- from bookprofit for the purpose of Section 115JA?” 3.The issue is now squarely covered by the decision of theDelhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ILPEAParamount (P) Ltd. reported in [2011] 336 ITR 54 (Delhi) whereinit has been held as under:- “Now, with the introduction of the said amendmentwith retrospective effect from 1/4/1998, theprovision for doubtful debts and the provision fordoubtful advances, which are nothing but provisionfor diminution in the value of asset, are specificallycovered under Clause (g) of the said Explanation.Consequently, the question insofar as it relates toprovision for doubtful debts and provision fordoubtful advances, requires to be answered infavour of the revenue and against the assessee. Itis so answered.” 4.In view of the subsequent amendment, the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal. 5.Hence, the appeal stands disposed off. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/66