|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1750 Records
-
2018 (1) TMI 1594
Winding up petition - direction to the company for repayment to the deposit holders - Refund of Fixed Deposits amount with interest - section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 - case of petitioner is that in spite of the maturity period is over, fixed deposit amounts have not been returned to them by the company - HELD THAT:- Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 says that no legal proceedings shall be commenced after winding up order has been made or the official liquidator is appointed as provisional liquidator, except by leave of the court. In the case on hand, winding up Petition No. 35 of 2013 filed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is pending before the hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh by the date of filing of this petition under section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 - It is a fact that, the petitioners did not obtain leave of court at the time of filing this petition or during the pendency of this proceedings. In view of the pendency of winding up Petition No. 35 of 2013 and in view of section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, proceedings filed by the deposit holders cannot be proceeded with at the instance of deposit holders against Plethico Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
In fact, the petitioners are entitled to their deposit amount with unpaid interest at the agreed rates and the company has to make payment of such amount on par along with other creditors and other liabilities - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1593
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - Interest income earned from deposits with the Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram - whether a sum assessed as `income from other sources’ whether is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d)? - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax & Anrs. Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society [2015 (4) TMI 829 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] had categorically held that deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act is only for income received on investments with a Co-operative Society and not a Co-operative Bank. Whereas earlier Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax & Anrs. Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society [2017 (1) TMI 1100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and held that Co-operative Society includes a Co-operative Bank and interest earned from deposits with a Co-operative Bank is also entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act.
The assessee had specifically raised the contention that the assessee is only a Co-operative Society and not a Cooperative Bank. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be examined by the A.O. afresh in the light of the certificate issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies regarding the status of Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Limited. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1592
Jurisdiction of first respondent/Checkpost Officer to levy and collect tax and penalty - HELD THAT:- This issue was considered in favour of the assessee by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in the case of GODREJ-GE APPLIANCES LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS [1999 (2) TMI 636 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL] where it was held that the failure to obtain transit pass at the first check-post on entering into Tamil Nadu adds strength to the case of evasion of tax.
The writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to transmit the files pertaining to the impugned order to the second respondent, who shall issue notice to the petitioner, afford them an opportunity to submit their objections and after hearing the dealer in person pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1591
Assessment u/s 153A - Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on the judgment of CIT Vs. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 222 - ITAT MUMBAI(SB)] - HELD THAT:- During the course of the search and seizure action conducted on the assessee on 29.08.2011, no material whatsoever was found as regards the disallowance u/s 14A. We find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (Supra) had upheld the order of the special bench of the Tribunal, wherein it was observed that in the absence of incriminating material seized during the course of the search and seizure proceedings conducted under Sec. 132, no addition in respect of an unabated assessment could be made. CIT(A) in the present case going by the rule of judicial discipline had followed the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), therefore, no infirmity emerges from his order. - Decided against revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1590
Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - purchase from the registration canceled dealers - reversal of input tax credit as suggested by the Chartered Accountant in Form WW - petitioner pleads that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to go before the Assessing Officer since the petitioner is in the process of filing a petition under Section 84 of the said Act for reopening the assessment - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay the tax towards reversal of input tax credit as suggested by the Chartered Accountant in Form WW, being a sum of ₹ 19,712/-. In addition to that, the petitioner is directed to pay 15% of the disputed tax under the other two heads namely reversal of input tax credit under Section 19(5)(c) of the State Enactment and the purchases alleged to have been effected from registration canceled dealers, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner complies with the above two conditions, they will be entitled to treat the impugned assessment order as a show cause notice and submit their objections within a period of 15 days thereafter.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1589
Fraud made by Directors - Person responsible for issuance of the redeemable preference shares - as argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not a director when the resolution regarding issuance of redeemable preference shares was passed by the company thus he should not be made responsible for the acts of other directors - HELD THAT:- Senior Counsel fairly submits that the appellant is being held responsible, particularly in clause "f", because he continues to be a director as per the records of ROC as reflected on MCA portal. The concern of SEBI seems to be that the present directors, wrongly or rightly, who have been shown as directors on MCA portal should be made responsible for ensuring the repayment of the amount collected illegally by the company pursuant to resolution passed on 15th February, 2012, although the appellant was not a director at that time remains an admitted position.
We are of the considered opinion that this appeal can be disposed of with a direction to the appellant to obtain appropriate documents/orders from the competent authority to the effect that he was fraudulently appointed as director of the company in question on 10th February, 2015. For this purpose, the appellant is granted time up to one year to do the needful and submit the same to SEBI. In the eventuality of appellant producing the documents to the satisfaction of SEBI that he was fraudulently inducted as one of the directors of the company, SEBI will pass appropriate orders as per law.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1588
Capitalization of interest expenses - loan has been taken to invest in capital asset - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has only accepted the alternative claim of the assessee and allowed capitalization of interest expenditure since no business activity was carried out by the assessee during impugned AY. AO, in paragraph 3.2 of the quantum assessment order has also expressed similar view. Regarding rate of interest of 32%, the revenue could not point out how the same was excessive or unreasonable in the circumstances. The other expenditure of ₹ 41,900/-, being administrative in nature and incurred to maintain the corporate identity has rightly been allowed as revenue expenditure.
Finding no strength in revenue’s appeal, we dismiss the same.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1587
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtors failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant has produced all the required documents for proving that a loan was given to the respondent, bank statement proving the amount given to the respondent, copy of letter issued to the respondent to prove that loan has defaulted by the respondent and that the proposed resolution professional has given written communication that there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against him. So no doubt this application is liable to be admitted.
However, respondent being raised contentions that this application is premature and there is suppression of material facts regarding extension of period of loan to March,2018 and that the applicant has no authority to institute an application of this nature let us see whether the said contention raised by the respondent is probable or believable - The applicant has produced copy of board resolution dated 17.11.2017, Annexure- A for proving that applicant Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta was authorised to sign on behalf of the applicant company. We do not find any defect in the said document so as to reject it. So it proves that the applicant has got the authority to institute an application of this nature.
The applicant being succeeded in proving all the ingredients to be satisfied in an application of this nature this application is liable to be admitted under section 7(5) (a) of l&B,Code - Application admitted - moratorium is declared for the purposes referred to under 14 of the IBC Code.
List it on 05.02.2017.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1586
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of reason to believe - claim of depreciation on computer accessories - as per CIT AO in the original assessment order considered the issues which were the subject matter of reassessment order under section 143 read with section 147 - HELD THAT:- There is no question posed by the Assessing Officer in the course of original proceedings as regards the eligibility of depreciation of computer accessories. The assessment order under section 143(3) also does not speak anything about depreciation claimed on computer accessories. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was examination by the Assessing Officer in the course of original assessment proceedings whether the asses see is entitled to depreciation on computer accessories at the rate of 60 per cent.
There was no conscious opinion formed by the Assessing Officer while completing the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act to allow the claim of depreciation on computer accessories at the rate of 60 per cent.
Since AO has not examined the issue, it cannot be stated that he had formed an opinion as regards the allowability of depreciation on computer accessories at the rate of 60 per cent. Since no opinion on the issue was formed by the Assessing Officer, the reopening of assessment cannot be stated to be a mere change of opinion. We uphold the reopening of assessment as valid. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in cancelling the reassessment.
Technical know-how expenditure and royalty termination fee, whether it is to be allowed as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure and whether disallowance can be subject matter of reassessment has to be necessarily examined by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).It is for the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to conclude whether the additions are warranted on these three issues. - Decided in favour of revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1585
Following orders of the higher appellate authorities to decide the issue, where such order not accepted by the Department - Issues decided relying on assessee's own case and identical issues were decided by the Tribunal in the case of ICICI Prudential’s case [2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI] - all grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are covered in favour of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As decided in AGARWAL WAREHOUSING AND LEASING LTD. (NOW ADMANUM FINANCE LTD.) [2002 (7) TMI 86 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] relying on KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION case [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not ‘acceptable’ to the Department - in itself an objectionable phrase – and is the subject-matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessee and chaos in administration of tax laws.
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. v. CIT [2001 (7) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] reiterated that no Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts, and if a bench of a Tribunal on identical facts is allowed to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another bench of the Tribunal on an earlier occasion, that will be destructive of the institutional integrity itself. We follow the decision of the Tribunal mentioned hereinbefore and dismiss all the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in its appeal.
CIT(A) directed the AO to assessee the total income of the assessee in accordance with the order of the ITAT in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and then give effect to the provisions of section 72 of the Act in respect of carry forward of losses - HELD THAT:- As the above direction of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on facts and law, we uphold the same. Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of appeal.
Reduction of provision for fringe benefit tax/wealth tax - assessee pleaded that the AO while determining the income in the Shareholder’s Account(SHA), added back the amount being provision for fringe benefit tax/wealth tax - CIT(A) observed from the assessment order that no such amount has been added by the AO, while computing the total income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Assessee is governed by provisions of section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of the Act and both Policyholders’ Account (‘PHA’) and SHA form part of life insurance business of the assessee. The assessee has offered its income including results in SHA while determining income as per section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of First Schedule to the Act. Thus, the provision made towards fringe benefit tax/wealth tax is an allowable expense while determining the assessee’s income from life insurance business. We direct the AO to allow ₹ 7,69,438/- as an allowable expense while determining income/(loss) in SHA.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1584
Duty Drawback - export of low priced goods by over-invoicing its value many times - HELD THAT:- The scheme of duty draw back is an incentive extended by the Government to any exporter who gains foreign exchange through export of finished goods manufactured from excisable materials used as raw material for manufacturing the goods exported. To avail this incentive, the obligation on the part of the exporter is that he should bring back the sale proceeds of the goods exported in foreign exchange into India through his firm's bank account within 6 months.
Sub-sections(1) and (2) of section 155 has to be read conjointly and not disjointly. “Good faith” and “anything done pursuance of this Act” (to be read as customs Act) which are twin pre-conditions mentioned in subsection (1) to be satisfied primarily. For those who satisfy the said twin conditions, proceedings shall be initiated after expiry of one month notice and within 3 months from the date of cause of action as per sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Act. If the pre-conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) is not attracted, the compliance of mandate mentioned in sub-section (2) does not arise.
This court holds that the contentions raised by the petitioner both on facts as well as law is devoid of merit and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1583
Erection, Commissioning & Installation Service - non-payment of service tax - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner have erred in holding that service tax is payable in spite of goods/material being used in execution of the contract for Indian Oil, supplied by the assessee-contractor and admittedly VAT-”works contract” tax have been paid. Accordingly, we find that the classification adopted in the impugned order-‟Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service‟ is not tenable and palpably wrong - thus, the service rendered by the appellant is classifiable under “Works Contract Service‟ as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzza).
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1582
Valuation - undervaluation - Revenue entertained a view that the assessable value of appellant’s goods was on the lower side whereas the goods was being sold at higher price and the differential amount was being reflected in the balance sheet as income arising out of Share Trading - HELD THAT:- The revenue in the present appeal has not produced any evidence on record to show that such extra income shown by the respondent in their balance sheet was on account of any under valuation activities of their final products. In the absence of any evidence on record, the revenue’s allegation cannot be upheld.
No infirmity is found in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1581
Direction to the Financial Creditor - State Bank of India to extend full cooperation to the applicant - permission to manage and operate the affairs of the corporate debtor as a going concern - HELD THAT:- Section 14(3) of I&B Code would show that the prohibition has been imposed on the non-applicability of Section 14(1) to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any Financial Sector Regulator. It is well know that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code was enforced with effect from 01.12.2016 and the circular on which reliance have been placed pertain to the year 2004 and 2015. On repeated quarries made by us Ld. Counsel for the non applicant could not produce any circular issued under Section 14(3) by the Central Government notifying transaction to which the provision of Section 14(1) are not to apply.
The circulars of RBI therefore, cannot override the effect of provisions of the Code as such circulars are only subordinate / legislation.
Once the moratorium is in force the financial creditor including the bank has to prefer its claim before the RP, which would be considered alongwith other claims as per law - there is direct violation of Section 14(I)(c) which creates a bar prohibiting any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation Act is also prohibited. Besides there is violations of order of moratorium passed by this Tribunal on 01.06.2017. As there is a direct statutory violation we find that it is a fit case for imposing cost. Accordingly, a cost of ₹ 25,000/- is imposed on the non applicant / respondent. The cost be deposited in the Prime Minister Welfare Fund.
Application allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1580
Interpretation of statute - N/N. 15/2010-C.E., dated 27-2-2010 - whether the Condition No. 2 of Notification No. 15/2010-C.E., dated 27-2-2010 is required to be fulfilled before the goods are cleared and can be fulfilled subsequently even after the goods are cleared? - HELD THAT:- The wording of Notification clearly established that even after the clearance of the goods undertaking could be submitted by the appellant. Therefore, the contention of revenue is that before the goods were cleared undertaking was to be given cannot be considered to be as per law. In view of the above interpretation of said condition No. 2, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by Revenue.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1579
Captive consumption of Coal in mines - benefit of N/N. 67/1995, dated 16-3-1995 - HELD THAT:- The coal captively used by the appellant and captured in detail in their records will show that they are rightly eligible for exemption as claimed under Notification No. 67/95 for duty as well as cess.
Here the Clean Energy Cess Rules, 2010 defines “Removal” as dispatch of specified goods from a mine and shall include dispatch of such goods for captive consumption within that mine for any purpose other than for raising of such goods”. The lower Authorities otherwise indicated that the appellant shall be eligible for coal if shown to have been used for raising of such coal captively. As such, no excise duty as well as cess on such captively consumed coal are liable to be demanded and paid.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1578
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor has defaulted in remitting the amounts under some invoices giving rise to an Operational Debt - existence of dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the email relied upon by the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor are addressed to Mr. Dhananjay Kumar of the sister company of the Corporate Debtor, supporting the contention of the Corporate Debtor that the transactions were interrelated. The agreement relied upon by the Operational Creditor was also with M/s SSMP. Both parties have relied upon the common agreement and common emails. From the various emails, it is apparent that disputes existed even prior to the issuance of notice under Section 8.
Notwithstanding that the notice for arbitration may have been given around the same time as the notice u/s 8 of the Code by the Operational Creditor, but the copious emails on record are sufficient to show the dissatisfaction over the documentation, raising the element of deficiency in services rendered had been raised long back - it appears that the payments were withheld on account of a dispute, the prayer of initiating Insolvency Resolution Process cannot be granted.
Petition dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1577
Partition of suit property - whether partition deed dated March 15, 1971 is valid in law, inasmuch as, this issue will have bearing on the remaining case? - HELD THAT:- It would be pertinent to point out that even after holding that during the lifetime of their father sons cannot claim partition of the properties as per the said customary Hindu Law, the High Court has accepted the fact that the father is still enabled to distribute and partition his property between the children and the descendants. As per the High Court, this can be done either by instruments inter vivos or by Will and further that the settlement or Will must comply with the formalities, conditions and rules laid down for donations inter vivos and Wills and the partitions made by donation inter vivos must include only those properties which the donor then possesses. In respect of this assertion, the High Court has referred to Article Nos. 1075 and 1076 of the French Code.
The High Court has observed that the father can distribute or partition the property between the children and the descendants only by gift or family settlement between the parties themselves. According to it, the plaintiffs had not set up their claim on that basis as they did not rely on Articles 1075, 1076 or 1077 of the French Code in respect of their claim.
Hindu Succession Act would not govern, even if it has been enforced in the territory of Puducherry in the year 1963. The High Court has dealt with this aspect in detail in its judgment, as pointed out above, and has come to the conclusion that insofar as Christians are concerned, old Customary Law continue to apply. No attempt was made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant to dislodge the same. Even otherwise, it is the Customary Hindu Law which has been applied to decide the case which approach is perfectly justified.
Therefore, the main issue is as to whether such a partition deed could be executed by Oubegaranadin in respect of the properties of which he was the absolute owner. It is to be borne in mind that the properties in question had fallen in the share of Oubegaranadin on the basis of partition deed dated March 23, 1959 between Oubegaranadin and his brothers. As on that date, French Code governed the field as per which customary Hindu Law applies. It is not disputed that Oubegaranadin had become the absolute owner of the property in question - The High Court was, therefore, right in observing that such a partition deed has to be construed either a gift deed or family settlement. However, the claim of the plaintiffs was not on that basis. It was not stated anywhere as to whether necessary formalities, conditions or rules laid down for donation inter vivos or gift so as to enforce said document were complied with in the absence of any pleadings, obviously no evidence was produced to this effect.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1576
Import of Sand - applicability of provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder - Whether the impleading party is entitled to be impleaded? - HELD THAT:- The impleading party claims to be a purchaser of sand from the writ petitioner. In view of the impugned actions, he is unable to receive the sand. Therefore, under the circumstances, this court finding force in the contentions of the Learned Senior Counsel for the proposed party, allows C.M.P.No.11317/2017 impleading the proposed party as the 7th respondent in the Writ Appeal.
Whether the writ petitioner is liable to register and seek permits forstorage, transportation and sale of imported sand from outside india as per the MMDR Act, 1957, TNMMR 1959 and Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules 2011? - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the existing Act and Rules are applicable only to sand and minerals quarried in India and the Learned Single Judge had rightly rejected the contentions of the appellants and held that the appellants cannot rely upon the existing provisions to insist the respondents / writ petitioners to obtain permits for storage and transportation of Imported Sands and the appeal on this question fails.
Whether the directions issued by the writ court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India needs interference? - HELD THAT:- When the directions issued by the Learned Single Judge are examined, this Court is of the view that the directions are not legislative directions but only directions issued for non-compliance of statutory provisions and for failure to safeguard the environment and the ecology, which in the opinion of this Court, is duty enshrined on the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Further, when there is an alternate source of sand, which is permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the directions cannot be termed as beyond the scope of the writ petition.
Insofar as the contention that the directions can be issued only by the Division Bench, this Court is not in consonance with same. The directions were issued by the Learned Single Judge in exercise of his power under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is wider even than the power of the Apex Court under Article 32. The law on this point is settled in many cases. This High Court under Article 226 of the constitution has wide powers to issue directions to not only protect the fundamental rights but also the constitutional rights. The directions issued are relating to and connected with the subject matter of lis before the court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge was well within the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the second question is answered in negative against the appellants.
Another ground that was raised is that the directions have been issued without giving opportunity to the State and lessees. This statement is fallacious for the simple reason that the Collectors on behalf of different Districts represented the State in this Writ Appeal and the learned Advocate General of the State has argued their case, not only before the Division Bench and also before the learned Single Judge. Further, the State has now issued a Government order permitting import by individuals with certain conditions. Therefore, the contention also fails.
Whether this Court has a legal obligation/mandate to preserve ecology, i.e Sand, Forests, Water, Air, etc for the present and for future generations as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by issuing appropriate directions? - HELD THAT:- The courts have stepped in to protect the environment by curbing mining activity, whenever the state has failed in its duty under Article 48 A and 51 A. Also, from the various reports referred above, it is evident that the directions and the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court referred above have been violated and the illegal mining activity has not been curbed and the mining has been continued beyond permissible limits, resultantly, causing irreparable damage to the ecology - The scope of judicial review is not limited to validity of enactments alone but would also be applicable to policy decisions when the decisions either directly or indirectly violate the fundamental rights, more so in cases where the interest of the public is at stake.If the ecology is not protected, there is no doubt that it will endanger the very existence of human life and we might not even have a future generation.Therefore, as a custodian of the fundamental rights and the constitutional rights, it is the duty of this court to ensure that environment is protected and is not subjected to degradation, when the authorities have failed. Hence, the third question is answered in affirmative.
This Court is of the view that the appellants have not made out any case for interference with the order of the Learned Single Judge - Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1575
Bad Debts written off u/s.36(1)(vii) - AO disallowed the assessee's claim as he was of the view that it was only a prudential write off since the individual accounts were not squared off - CIT (Appeals) rejected the assessee's contentions that the said bad debts are written off by debit in the profit and loss account under the head ‘Bad Debts Written Off Account’ under the code 163301, as he was of the view that unless the individual debts are squared off, the entries in the books of account cannot be accepted as reliable - HELD THAT:- The facts on record indicate that the assessee bank has debited the bad debts written off to the account ‘Bad Debts Written Off Account’ (GL Code 163301) which is part of the profit and loss account and has reduced the write off from Gross Advances in the Balance Sheet. The authorities below disallowed the write off on the ground that the individual accounts are not squared off at the branch level. We find that this issue of write off has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the assessee's own case [2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] we hold that the assessee bank is eligible to claim and be allowed write off of the bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) and we therefore reverse and delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in this regard. Consequently, Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed.
Disallowance of claim u/s.36(1)(viia) - AO was of the view that it is only the incremental advances that has to be considered for computing the ‘AAA’ [Aggregate Rural Advances] and consequently allowed the deduction partly - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is settled in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank [2017 (11) TMI 1425 - ITAT BANGALORE] and in view thereof we hold that the computation of the AAA made by the Assessing Officer is incorrect.
AR submitted that the assessee is not disputing the classification of rural branches made by the Assessing Officer and accepts the AAA as at 31.3.2010 at ₹ 2020,71,42,322 as arrived at by the Assessing Officer at page 42 of the order of assessment and in this context pleaded that the matter need not be remanded back to the Assessing Officer. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction by considering the AAA at ₹ 2020,71,42,322 as worked out by Assessing Officer at page 42 of his order and direct the Assessing Officer to rework the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act accordingly. Consequently, the Ground No.4 of assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) - assessee bank challenges the action of the authorities below in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viii) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 51,00,00,000 out of ₹ 76 Crores - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue was considered and held in favour of the assessee and against revenue by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Corporation Bank [2015 (3) TMI 1360 - ITAT BANGALORE] to hold that a reserve created in subsequent years, however, before finalization of grant of deduction, is required to be considered while allowing assessee’s claim of deduction made under s. 36(1)(viii) - We hold that reserve created even in subsequent / succeeding years; however before the finalization of grant of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act i.e. as per date of order of assessment is required to be considered while allowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine and allow the assessee's claim accordingly.
Depreciation on HTM Securities - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue has been considered and held in favour of assessee and against Revenue refering to its own decision [2013 (10) TMI 1030 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
Disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (7) TMI 86 - ITAT BANGALORE] there is no expenditure incurred directly by the bank for earning any tax free income. Since the expenditure would have been incurred by the bank even without the earning of tax free income, no part of the expenditure can be related to earning the tax free income and no disallowance can be made u/s.14A.
Applicability of Sec. 115JB of the Act to Banking Companies - HELD THAT:- Decided in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2008-09 [2015 (7) TMI 86 - ITAT BANGALORE] that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to Banking companies.
Contribution to Pension Fund and Gratuity Fund - Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction only to the extent of the amount debited to the profit and loss account and disallowed the rest and the CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance - HELD THAT:- We find that the above decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Andhra Bank [2014 (7) TMI 904 - ITAT HYDERABAD] is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In this factual and legal matrix of the case as discussed above, we find no cause for interference with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue
............
|
9911796707
