Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 599 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of broken period interest - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11ssue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 [2015 (4) TMI 583 - ITAT HYDERABAD] to hold that broken period interest claimed by assessee is an allowable deduction - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of amortization of premium paid in excess of face value of securities - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Undisputedly, the government securities under HTM category have been held as stock-in-trade by assessee. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UCO Bank (1999 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court), securities on which premium is paid, if held under HTM category are to be treated as stock-in-trade. ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of ACIT Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2011 (9) TMI 961 - ITAT MUMBAI] while deciding the issue relating to allowability of deduction claimed towards amortization on premium paid on excess face value of securities held under HTM category has allowed assessee’s claim - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) - Held that:- Undisputedly, assessee has not made any provision for bad and doubtful debts in the books of account as required u/s 36(1)(viia). Only in computation of income filed along with return of income assessee has claimed deduction towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. On perusal of section 36(1)(viia), it is very much clear that for claiming deduction under the said provision, the mandatory requirement is assessee must have made a provision in the books of account for claiming deduction in the manner prescribed therein. Therefore, when assessee has not made any provision in the books of account in so far as bad and doubtful debts are concerned, assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). The Hon’ble P&H High Court in case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. CIT (2004 (5) TMI 12 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court ) while interpreting the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) has held that unless assessee bank makes a provision for bad and doubtful debt in the books of account, no deduction is allowable. - Decided against assessee.
|