9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e common Grounds of appeals arising from same set of facts are involved in all appeals, these appeals are taken up, heard together and being decided by this common order. 2. First we shall take up the appeal of Assessee-Bank vide ITA No. 3639/Mum/2004 for AY-2000-01. Brief facts of the case are that Assessee- Bank filed return of income on 29.11.2000 for relevant AY, declaring total income of Rs NIL. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 27.03.2002. In revised return the total income remained the same at Rs. NIL. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. After serving the notice u/s 143(2), the AO framed the assessment order. While framing the assessment, the AO besides certain addition/ disallowance made a dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be added to Book Profits and that, therefore, such addition be deleted. II. COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT 1. The CIT -A erred in upholding disallowance of non-rural Bad Debts written off to the extent of Rs. 69,85,05,652/-, since such write-off, together with the write-off of rural bad debts of Rs. 35,06,62,782/- did not exceed the Provision of Rural Debts of Rs. 141,41,99,437/- allowed during the year. (a) The Appellants submit that sub-section (viia) of Section 36(1) allows two distinct deductions computed differently as set out below : (i) a deduction not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural ranches of the bank; and (ii) a deduction not exceeding 5% of the To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny permanent Establishment, in India and were therefore not liable to tax in India. The Appellants therefore pray that the disallowance made by the DCIT on a wrong understanding of facts and of law be deleted. 3. The CIT -A erred in upholding allocation, on an adhoc basis, interest expense of Rs. 54,44,46,000/- and business expenses amounting to Rs. 1,65,88,086/- to Income from Dividends and Interest exempt under Section (23G), etc. and disallowing the same in computing Income from Business. The Appellants submit that no expenses were incurred in earning the said income aggregating to Rs. 82,94,04,311/- and that the allocation so made is wholly adhoc, unjustified and unwarranted on the facts of the case. The Appellants, carrying on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. ACIT (ITA No. 237/M/2002), (f) UCO Bank v. DCIT (2015) 64 taxmann.com 51 (Kolkata ITAT). The Ld AR for assessee further submitted that all the other Grounds raised in the appeals are also covered in favour of assessee-bank and furnished a chart, along with the copies of the decisions. Ld AR for the assessee further argued that in case the assessee succeeds on the additional Grounds of appeal, the discussions on other grounds of appeals would become academic. Ld DR for Revenue relied upon the order of authorities below, however, on raising query regarding the applicability of various decisions cited by AR of assessee with regard to additional Ground of appeals, the same was not disputed by him. 4. We have considered the rival content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not apply in the case of banking companies which are not required to prepare the profit and loss account as per the requirements of Part II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. Since the provisions of Section 115 JB do not apply to the assessee company, the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment are clearly wrong and insufficient. We are urged to quash the reassessment proceedings on this short ground. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, vehemently relies upon the orders of the authorities below and submits that there is no specific exclusion clause for the banking companies, and in the absence of such a clause, it is not open to us to infer the same. The submissions of the learned counsel, ITA No. 43 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiation of reassessment proceedings was bad in law, and we quash the same". 5. The similar view was approved by the Co-ordinate Bench in case(s) of Union Bank of India, Times Bank Ltd., State Bank of Hyderabad, Dena Bank and UCO Bank (Supra) by Mumbai Tribunal, and in case of UCO Bank(supra) by Co-ordinate Bench of Kolkata Tribunal, thus the Ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed. 6. As we have already held that MAT provision u/s 115JA/115JB are not applicable against the assessee, thus the discussions on all Grounds of appeal arising out of the assessment order has become academic. In the result the appeal filed by assessee are allowed. 7. In ITA No. 3640/Mum/2004 for AY 2001-02, ITA No.2557/M/2011 for AY 2002-03, ITA No.255 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
