Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 400 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance on account of amortization of premium - addition deleted by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of AYs 2013-14 [2019 (10) TMI 1068 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] and 2014-15 [2019 (6) TMI 1425 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] instructions clearly provide for amortization of premium paid on securities when the same are acquired at the rate higher than the face value. Such amortization would have to be for the remaining period of maturity. In view of the above stated facts and legal finding, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Learned CIT(A) - we respectfully follow the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of amortization of premium. Ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. Disallowance of deposits written off with Madhavpura Mercantile Co-op. Bank - addition deleted by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:-CIT(A) thus allowed relief to the assessee on this issue by relying on the order of his learned predecessor passed in assessee’s own case for AY 2013-14 [2019 (10) TMI 1068 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - As agreed by the learned representatives of both the sides, this issue is thus squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal passed in assessee’s own case for AY 2013-14 and respectfully following the same, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of deposits written off with Madhavpura Mercantile Co-op. Bank . Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. Disallowance of Impact Fee - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) thus allowed relief to the assessee on this issue by relying on the decision of Yadunandan Corporation Surat [2011 (11) TMI 868 - ITAT AHMEDABAD], Keerthi Estates P. (Ltd) [2017 (8) TMI 1672 - ITAT HYDERABAD] and Sanjay Bharatkumar Shah [2021 (12) TMI 814 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein held that compounding fees paid to municipal corporation for regularizing a building plan is not in nature of offence nor prohibited by law therefore allowable as deduction. Ground No.3 of the Revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. Disallowance of investment written off - CIT-A deleted the addition - Assessee has submitted that even though a Civil Suit was filed by the assessee before the Civil Judge at Surat for recovery of the amount in question, name of the concerned company having been struck off from the record of Registrar of Companies and the concerned individuals not being traceable, the amount has become irrecoverable - HELD THAT:- If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rao Construction (P) Ltd [2013 (8) TMI 240 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee, we find ourselves in agreement with learned CIT(A) that the loss suffered by the assessee as a result of the amount in question having become irrecoverable from M/s. Home Trade Ltd is incidental to the assessee’s business and the same is allowable as deduction. Even the learned DR has not been able to raise any material contention to dispute this position. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and dismiss Ground 4 of the Revenue’s appeal.
|