9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that the requisite conditions for applicability of section 36(1)(viii) was that the assessee must be a Rs.financial corporation' engaged in extending long term finance to industrial and agricultural development and the development of infrastructure facility. In the opinion of the learned CIT, the assessee did not satisfy this initial condition of being a financial corporation. Even assuming that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(viii), the learned CIT held that the allowance of claim at Rs.230.45 crore was incorrect. In his opinion the correct amount of deduction ought to have been only Rs.117.03 crore. On being called upon to explain as to why the deduction be not denied as the assessee was not a financial corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o held the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on some aspect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts. Eventually on last page of the impugned order, he set out his conclusion as regards the applicability of section 263 as under :- "(i) Deduction of Rs.230.45 crores granted under section 36(1)(viii) may be withdrawn as the assessee is not entitled for the deduction as it is not a Rs.financial corporation' within the meaning of section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act, 1961. (ii) It may be specifically stated in the order that in case it is found in appellate proceedings that the assessee is entitled for the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) the deduction to be made on the basis of the assessment as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the assessee has placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Union Bank of India v. ACIT [(2011 16 Taxman.com 304 (Mumbai)] holding that deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) is to be allowed to the Government banks even in the years prior to A.Y. 2007-08. In the light of this order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal granting deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) in the period prior to assessment year 2007-2008, the learned AR contended that the assessee should also be made eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii). On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the order passed by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Federal Bank Limited [(2008) 175 Taxman 102 (Coch) (Mag.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii), it is seen that the assessee claimed such deduction at Rs.230.45 crore and the learned CIT worked it out at Rs.117.03 crore. The ld. AR fairly conceded that the computation of the amount of deduction involves appreciation of a lot of record and hence this part may be remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. No objection was raised by the ld. DR in this regard. In view of the rival but common submissions, we principally uphold the impugned order on the question of the erroneous and prejudicial nature of the assessment order on this issue. However in so far as the computation part is concerned, the same is sent back to the A.O. for a fresh decision as per law after allowing a reasonable opp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
