Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 897 - ITAT CHENNAIAddition u/s 36(1)(viia) - Provision for standard assets and the provision for country risk as provision for bad and doubtful debts - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (2) TMI 1691 - ITAT CHENNAI] admittedly, no question was asked to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings also with regard to the claim made by it under Section 36(1)(viia), insofar as it concerns the quantum of such claim. This obviously show that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. Assessing Officer had not come to any conclusion at all having not considered the claim in the light of the conditions set out in Section 36(1)viia of the Act. We cannot say that he had taken a view which was in accordance with law. It is not a case where the Assessing Officer had adopted one of the courses possible in law. Of course, a cryptic order of the Assessing Officer by itself may not show that there was no thought given: by him on a claim of the assessee. Here there was no enquiry made during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the order which was silent on the claim made by the assessee, and allowing such claim, without any discussion,: will definitely render it erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar industrial Co. Ltd. v. lT [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” is a term of wide import and not confined to loss of tax. An order without application of mind is definitely prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We are in agreement with Id. CIT that the order of Assessing Officer was insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.No interference is required. - Decided against assessee. Restriction of relief u/s. 90 to the extent of tax paid in foreign country instead of tax charged on foreign income which is included in total income - HELD THAT:- Issue decided against the assessee by the co-ordinate Bench for the assessment year 2009-10 [2014 (6) TMI 954 - ITAT CHENNAI]. Depreciation on Goodwill - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (2) TMI 1691 - ITAT CHENNAI] assessee did not have any goodwill in commercial terms as it has acquired more liabilities than the assets. The Ld.DR’s submission that when there is no goodwill as per the terms of the agreement as well as in reality. When the assessee has not paid any amount for the goodwill, it cannot claim existence of any goodwill. When there is no existence of goodwill, it is not entitled for any depreciation. Therefore, the assessee’s corresponding grounds fail. Disallowance of contribution to staff welfare fund - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (2) TMI 1691 - ITAT CHENNAI] respectfully following it, we reject the corresponding grounds of the assessee. Recovery in respect of bad debts written off relating to rural branches - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (2) TMI 1691 - ITAT CHENNAI] Revenue does not dispute that the assessee had raised its claim of deduction of bad debts relating to the very sums in preceding assessment years. The Assessing Officer did not allow this relief in relevant previous year, when it has recovered the aforesaid debts, the Revenue is again seeking to tax the same. There is no cogent evidence before us to dispute this factual position Moreover, the CIT(A) has cited section 41(4) of the Act whilst granting relief.The Revenue has failed to point out any legal or factual error in CIT(A)’s findings Therefore, the same are affirmed. However, as a matter of caution, we observe that the assessee’s claim of bad debts pertaining to those sums in preceding assessment years, if any, shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With these observations, the Revenue’s ground is rejected. Depreciation on UPS allowed at 60% instead of 80% - HELD THAT:- As relying in own case [2019 (2) TMI 1691 - ITAT CHENNAI] we reject this ground raised by the assessee. Depreciation on ATM - HELD THAT:- As relying in own case [2019 (2) TMI 1691 - ITAT CHENNAI] concluded that ATM cannot function without the help of computer and would be a part of the computer used in the banking industry. Reliance was placed by the Tribunal upon the decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the matter of DCIT v. Global Trust Bank [2011 (1) TMI 1430 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it has been held that ATM was a computer equipment and depreciation @ 60% was allowed. So far as the use of software is concerned, the Tribunal records a fact that the evidence of the use of the software on 31/3/2008 was produced before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal held that depreciation @ 30% on software was rightly claimed. Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) based on advances outstanding and not on incremental advances - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2017 (4) TMI 1424 - ITAT CHENNAI] Commissioner Tax (Appeals) has not erred in directing the Assessing Officer to the aggregate average advances outstanding at the end of each month and not the incremental advances granted during each month while computing deduction under section 36(i)(viia) Allowability of loss on revaluation of trading derivatives - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2017 (4) TMI 1424 - ITAT CHENNAI] we uphold the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and reject the grounds of Revenue Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- There Is no finding in the assessment order regarding treatment of exempted income yielding assets as stock-in-trade. Hence, in our opinion, if it is treated as stock-in-trade by the assessee, then the claim of assessee is to be allowed in terms of Order of Tribunal [2014 (9) TMI 1179 - ITAT CHENNAI] . Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of AO for fresh consideration. Disallowance of provision for leave encashment - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (2) TMI 1691 - ITAT CHENNAI] as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the Department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal of the Department is allowed. We further make it clear that the assessee would, during the pendency of this Civil Appeal, pay tax as if section 43B(f) is on the statute Book but at the same it would be entitled to make a claim in its returns - thus the addition is sustained. Depreciation on assets taken over by Bank of Tamilnadu - HELD THAT:- Since the LdCIT(A) has directed the AO to follow the directions of this tribunal decision in the assessee’s own case in [2013 (4) TMI 751 - ITAT CHENNAI] wherein, the ITAT had remitted the matter back to the AO to verify the scheme of take over and to determine whether the provisions of section 2(1B) were applicable, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Applicability of provisions of section 115JB - HELD THAT:- Since, the Ld. CIT(A) has followed and applied the decision of Calcutta ITAT in the case of UCO Bank [2015 (12) TMI 300 - ITAT KOLKATA] and Damodar Valley Corporation [2018 (8) TMI 1363 - ITAT KOLKATA] we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence, the corresponding grounds of the Revenue on this ground as well as the other grounds raised by the Revenue with regard to the various additions made in computing book profits are dismissed.
|