Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1782 - AT - Income TaxLoss of revaluation of investment held under IF1M Category - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (1) TMI 689 - ITAT DELHI] wherein after considering the case law on this aspect including the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and the Master Circular of the RBI on the aspect of valuation of investments applicable to all banks prescribed in case of acquisition cost of securities classified under HTM category. Depreciation on shifting of securities from AFS/IIFT category to HMT Category - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (1) TMI 689 - ITAT DELHI] It is a verifiable fact with reference to the sales of securities, if any, that took place during the year or earlier or subsequent years. Such an exercise has not been undertaken by the learned assessing officer but merely basing on the figures reflected in the balance sheet which was prepared in accordance with the RBI guidelines, AO reached a conclusion that there was an escapement of income due to the preparation of the balance sheet in a particular way, as prescribed by the RBI. If we appreciate the facts of this case in the light of the decision of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] it is clear that since the assessee has been maintaining its accounts on mercantile system, they are entitled to show his real income by taking into account market value of such investments in arriving at real taxable income. Decided in favour of the assessee Addition on account of contribution made to PAR Employees Pension Fund Trust - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (1) TMI 689 - ITAT DELHI] similar expenses were allowed in earlier years in the assessments made under section 143 (3) of the Act and the decision of DCIT verses Ranbaxy laboratories Ltd [2009 (6) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-I] wherein the allowability of expenses towards provision for Pension Fund were held to be allowable expenses and section 43B has no application, is applicable. The fact that the assessee had actually contributed/paid the amount to pension fund makes the case of the assessee even stronger. Addition u/s 14A - CIT-A allowing relief to the assessee under Rule 8D(2)(iii) - HELD THAT:- Insofar as the assessee bank is concerned section 14A of the Act has no application in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp investments Ltd [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] - We, therefore, while respectfully following the above decision, hold that no addition in case of the assessee under section 14-A is sustainable. Hence, ground of appeal of assessee is allowed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 36(l)(viii) - eligible deduction under section 36(1)(viii) - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact Ld. CIT(A) treated this claim of the assessee as allowable and remanded matter for the limited purpose of submission of the current computation under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. We, therefore, uphold the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal. Addition on account of goodwill - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (1) TMI 689 - ITAT DELHI] CIT(A) noted that it is only a consequential claim during this year also and in view of the fact that his predecessors held the issue in favour of the assessee consistently for all these years, while following the same, we direct the Ld. AO to allow deposition on WDV of the block goodwill for this year also.
|