235 to 238 of 1980 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amounts provided by the assessee for bad and doubtful debts in the balance sheets of the relevant previous years qualified as reserves for the purpose of Clause xi b of Rule 1 of the First Schedule to the Companies Profits Surtax Act, 1964 and companysequently allowing year wise deduction as under 1971 72 Rs.
47,16,641 provided for bad and doubtful debts as at the beginning of the relevant accounting year respectively for the assessment years 1971 72, 1972 73, 1973 74 and 1975 76 qualified as a reserve for inclusion in the capital of the assessee under Second Schedule to the Companies Profits Surtax, Act, 1964.
The assessee has filed special leave petitions in this Court directly against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal.
2392 95 of 1993 and obtained special leave in the four cases, The judgment of the High Court is reported as Commissioner of Income Tax v. State bank of Patiala 203 ITR 150.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by its detailed order dated 23.1.1980, upheld the plea of the assessee and held that the amounts set apart as reserves are entitled for appropriate relief under Rule 1 xi b of the First Schedule and Rule 1 iii of the Second Schedule of the Act.
They relate to four assessment years 1971 72, 1972 73, 1973 74 and 1975 76.
The attempt to get the matter referred to the High Court was unsuccessful and so the assessee filed the special leave petition in this Court against the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
For those years, identical claim put forward by the appellant assessee was rejected by the Income Tax Officer.
Special leave petition C No.
By a detailed judgment dated 27.7.1992 the High Court took the view that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, sums of money set apart by the assessee as reserves are really provisions and number reserves and so, such sums are number entitled to the relief granted by the Appellate Tribunal.
A claim was laid that such sums qualified as reserves for the purpose of Rule 1 xi b of the First Schedule and Rule 1 iii of the Second Schedule of the Act and such sums, representing reserves, should be included in the capital of the appellant for appropriate relief.
The Civil Appeals filed from Special leave petitions C Nos.
On motion by the Revenue the Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions of law for the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which were numbered as Income Tax Reference Nos.
It is, thereafter the assessee moved this Court by special leave petition Nos.
Special leave petitions C Nos.
7,00,000 1972 73 Rs.
All the 13 appeals involve companysideration of the same question between the same parties.
The Appellate Tribunal finally decided against the assessee following the earlier decision of the High Court reported in 203 ITR 150.
In appeal, the income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the plea of the assessee.
In appeal, CIT allowed the claims.
13,78,000 1973 74 Rs.
22,11,000 1975 76 Rs.
27551 of 1995, relating to the same assessee and involving companysideration of the same question, relates to the assessment year 1985 86.
Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
So, they were heard together and are disposed of by this companymon judgment.
The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim.
27543 50 of 1995 relate to the same assessee and eight assessment years are involved therein 1979 80 to 1987 88 except 1985 86.
In the meanwhile, the decision of the High Court for the previous four years, i.e., 1971 72, 1972 73, 1973 74 and 1975 76 had been rendered and so the Tribunal, following the decision of the High Court, held against the assessee.
The appellant assessee set apart amounts as reserve for bad and doubtful debts in all the years.
2392 95 of 1993 are the main cases.
10,53,576, Rs.
27,21,641, Rs.
15,98,000 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amounts of Rs.
The appellant in the appeals is The State Bank of Patiala and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income tax, Patiala.
The matter arises under the Companies Profits Surtax Act, 1964 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
29,91,641 and Rs.
We heard companynsel for the appellant assessee, Mr. A. Subba Rao, and companynsel for the respondent Revenue, Mr. B.S. Ahuja.
These are all companynected cases.
The parties in all the appeals are the same.
