TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue in all the three years and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of amortization of premium paid on HTM (Held To Maturity) investments - Held that:- The loss arising on amortization of premium on 'investments held to maturity' has been held to be deductible in the assessee's own case by Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court and the decision of the High Court is reported as CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd in (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). Since this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court and since the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has withdrawn its earlier letter during the course of assessment proceeding before finalization of the assessment. Hence, the withdrawal letter given by the assessee, in our view, should not be taken cognizance of. Accordingly, we do not find merit in the said ground of the revenue.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.375/Mum/2012, ITA No.722/Mum/2012, ITA No.3465/Mum/2012, ITA No.4367/Mum/2012, ITA No.3020/Mum/2014, ITA No.1795/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 12-11-2014 - H. L. Karwa And B. R. Baskaran, AM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Yogesh A Thar For the Respondent : Shri A K Tejpal ORDER Per: Bench: These cross appeals are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) and they relate to the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. Ltd (328 ITR 81), the provisions of Rule 8D is applicable from assessment year 2008-09 and onwards. Further, it is settled proposition that the assessing officer can determine the amount of disallowance in terms of Rule 8D only if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, that too, after having regard to the accounts of the assessee. In the instant cases, the contention of the assessee is that the investments have been made out of own funds and hence there is no requirement of making disallowance of interest component. Further, it is contended that the securities are held as stock in trade and hence there is no requirement of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the alternative, it was contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh in all the three years by duly considering the various case law relied upon by the assessee and also by duly addressing various types of contentions of the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 5. The common ground available in all the three years in the appeals filed by the revenue relates to the disallowance of amortization of premium paid on HTM (Held To Maturity) investments. Following amounts have been disallowed in each of the years:- Assessment year 2008-09 Rs.288.38 crores Assessment year 2009-10 Rs.444.22 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins to the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act in AY 2010-11. Both the parties are in appeal before us on this issue. The facts relating to this issue are stated in brief. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) in respect of Provision for bad and doubtful debts to the tune of ₹ 351.06 crores in his return of income. It also claimed deduction of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 1655.47 crores. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee filed a letter dated 13.8.2012, wherein it withdrew the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and consequently sought to enhance the deduction of bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act to ₹ 1923.96 crores. When the assessing officer was ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) No data at all available with regard to population figure RBI licence and (d) the rural branches in respect of which no claim made by the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) shall be allowed only in respect of the branches falling in category (a), since there is no confusion in respect of this category. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) held that the deduction shall not be available in respect of the remaining three categories. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to allow deduction in respect of category (a) advances, which was worked out by him at ₹ 17.75 crores. In addition to the above, the Ld CIT(A) also directed the assessing officer to allow deduction of 7.5% of the total in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
