2015 (12) TMI 1183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal did not err in holding that in view of the decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (S)  the order of the Assessing Officer on the issue of amortization of premium on HTM securities by treating the same as revenue expenditure could not be said to be erroneous within the meaning of section 263 of the Income tax 1961?" 3. It is an agreed position between the parties that the facts relating to both the Assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 except the dates are identical. Therefore, reference to the facts of any of the two assessment years would reflect the contours of the dispute for both the assessment years. Thus for convenience we refer to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the respondent-assessee before the Tribunal. 8. By a common impugned order the Tribunal allowed the respondent-assessee's appeal for Assessment years 200506 and 200607 on the ground that the view taken by the respondent-assessee on account of amortization of premium paid on purchase of Securities (HTM) was allowable expenditure as held in the decisions of the Tribunal in CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD VS ACIT (2010) 38 SOT 553 (Cochin) and DY.CIT vs.HDFC BANK and vice versa2011-TIOL-681-ITT-MUM. Thus, the common impugned order holds that the view of the Assessing Officer was a possible view as evidenced by the decision of the Tribunal. It further holds that where the view of the Assessing Officer is a possible view then the jurisdiction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... E TAX vs.ING VYASA BANK LTD (supra) prima facie does not deal specifically with the issue of Securities (HTM) with which we are concerned. 11. Be that as it may, the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view as found in the decision of the Tribunal and of this Court referred to hereinabove. We are of the view that no fault can be found with the impugned order holding that in such a case no occasion to exercise powers of Revision under Section 263 of the Act can arise as held by the Supreme Court in MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD (supra). 12. In view of the above settled position of law in regard to jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act the impugned order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a substantial question of law. 13. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X