TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce u/s 14A can be made in the hands of the assessee, since it is covered by the special provision of computation of income u/s 44 of the Act. Consistent with the view taken in the above said years, we also hold that no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in this year also. Amortisation of premium paid on purchase of investments - HELD THAT:- As in the assessee s own case relating to AY 2004- 05 and 2006-0 decided the same in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd [2010 (10) TMI 764 - ITAT, MUMBAI] . Addition made u/s 69B - AO noticed that the actual value of shares held by the Custodian of the Assessee has exceeded the book value - HELD THAT:- The explanation of the assessee was that it had sold the shares, but the buyer has failed to take delivery of the same and hence the difference between the book quantity and the physical quantity has arisen. The same was not acceptable to both the tax authorities. The Tribunal has considered an identical issue in AY 2006-07 and held that the provisions of sec. 69B shall not apply to such kind of situations. Following the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Addition of interest charged u/s 234C - HELD THAT:- A.R fairly admitted that this issue is decided against the assessee in the earlier years. Accordingly we confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Reversal of Provision for impairment loss on investments - HELD THAT:- Since the gain on sale of investments has been held to be not taxable, the corrolary is that the loss or the provision made for loss shall also not be deductible Disallowance of exgratia payment - assessee took the plea that the provisions of sec. 43B shall govern this claim - HELD THAT:- We have noticed that this issue has already been restored to the file of the AO by Ld CIT(A) to examine the claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act, i.e., the original reasons for making this disallowance appears to have been accepted by the assessee, since it has not raised any ground thereon. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in his order. - I.T.A. No. 2330/Mum/2009, I.T.A. No. 2276/Mum/2009 - - - Dated:- 25-5-2016 - S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) AND Amit Shukla (JM) For the Appellant : Shri Farrukh Irani For the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee relates to the amortisation of premium paid on purchase of investments. The co-ordinate bench of Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the assessee s own case relating to AY 2004- 05 and 2006-07 in ITA No.3562/Mum/2007 and ITA No.3180/Mum/2009 (supra) and has decided the same in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd (ITA No.2597/Mum/2009 dated 22.10.2010). Following the said order, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete this addition. 6. The next issue relates to the addition made u/s 69B of the Act. The AO noticed that the actual value of shares held by the Custodian of the Assessee has exceeded the book value by ₹ 5.20 lakhs. Hence the AO assessed the same u/s 69B of the Act and Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. The explanation of the assessee was that it had sold the shares, but the buyer has failed to take delivery of the same and hence the difference between the book quantity and the physical quantity has arisen. The same was not acceptable to both the tax authorities. The Tribunal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of income. 12. Since the assessee has failed to furnish the details of computation of income pertaining to AY 2004-05 and 2005-06, we are unable to decide this issue. However, we have noticed that the assessee itself has disallowed the provision amount of ₹ 5.94 crores in AY 2003-04, meaning thereby, the assessee has intended to omit the entries passed in this regard. Accordingly, the assessee must have excluded the amount of ₹ 5.94 crores credited to Profit and Loss account and also disallowed the provision of ₹ 5.67 crores made on 31.3.2004, while computing the income for AY 2004-05. If the assessee has so disallowed the provision of ₹ 5.67 crores made on 31.3.2004, then the reversal of the above said amount made on 1.4.2004 should not be taxed in AY 2005-06. However, this fact requires verification. Upon verification, if it is found that the provision of ₹ 5.67 crores reversed on 1.4.2004 was not excluded while computing the income for AY 2005-06, then we direct the AO to exclude the same. Since all these facts require verification, we set the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Collector of Central Excise (Supplment 2) SCC 432. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. 18. The ground no.1 and 2 relate to the profit on sale of investments. Since we have held that the profit on sale of investments is not taxable in the hands of the assessee in its entirety while adjudicating the grounds of the assessee, these two grounds urged by the revenue becomes infructuous. 19. Ground No.5 relates to the addition of ₹ 44.66 lakhs relating to interest charged u/s 234C of the Act. Ld A.R fairly admitted that this issue is decided against the assessee in the earlier years. Accordingly we confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 20. Ground no.6 relates to the claim relating to reversal of Provision for impairment loss on investments. Since the gain on sale of investments has been held to be not taxable, the corrolary is that the loss or the provision made for loss shall also not be deductible. Similar view has been taken in the assessee s own case in ITA No.3400/Mum/2011 dated 20-02-2015, wherein the decision rendered in ITA No.3846/Mum/2008 dated 29.7.2011 was followed. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
