Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 993 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of amortization of premium paid for purchase of securities - nature and character of the relevant securities held by the assessee - HELD THAT:- It is also observed that the CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008 issued on 26.11.2008 relied upon by the ld. D.R. recognizes the significance of this distinction made between the securities held as stock-in-trade and investment on the basis of RBI guidelines dated 16.10.2000. in view the said Instruction issued by the CBDT as well as the decision of Punjab & Sind Bank [2012 (9) TMI 446 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we are of the view that this matter should go back to the AO for deciding the same afresh after determining the nature and character of the relevant securities held by the assessee and even the ld. Counsel for the assessee has finally agreed with the same. We accordingly set aside the impugned order by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO. Addition u/s 14A by applying Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- Since no such satisfaction was recorded by the AO, it was not permissible to him to invoke Rule 8D and make a further disallowance u/s 14A. It is observed that the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10, inasmuch as, no proper satisfaction u/s 14A(2) was recorded by the AO in the assessment order passed for the year under consideration about the disallowance suo motu offered by the assessee being incorrect by pointing out any deficiency. We, therefore, respectfully follow the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own case in [2016 (6) TMI 181 - ITAT KOLKATA] and uphold the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A by applying Rule 8D. Addition on account of income from house property - CIT(Appeals) directed the AO to determine the income of the assessee from house properties by taking the annual value on the basis of Municipal valuation - HELD THAT:- As in case of CIT –vs.- Satya Company Limited .1993 (8) TMI 293 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein held when the Municipal valuation of the property in question itself is available and such valuation has not been disputed, the same should be adopted as the annual value of the property after adding 1/9th thereto. Assessee has also agreed for the adoption of the same method to determine the annual value of the assessee’s properties. We accordingly modify the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and direct the AO to determine the annual value of the assessee’s properties by adopting the Municipal valuation after adding 1/9th thereto. Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is thus partly allowed. Addition on account of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) - apportioning the operating expenses - HELD THAT:- As rightly contended on behalf of the assessee in this regard before the CIT(Appeals) as well as before us, the operating expenses were required to be incurred by the assessee in relation to its total banking business and the non-performing assets definitely formed part of such business. The assessee-Bank was required to manage both performing as well as non-performing assets and the operating expenses incurred by it thus were attributable to non performing assets also. It appears that this vital aspect was not appreciated by the authorities below in proper perspective and as rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the basis adopted by them for apportioning the operating expenses without proper appreciation of the vital position resulted in a distorted picture. The basis adopted by the assessee for the apportionment of operating expenses was more fair and reasonable and since the same followed consistently by the assessee in the earlier years was accepted by the revenue till assessment year 2010-11, we hold that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue by deviating from the stand consistently taken in the earlier year is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|