TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable to the appellant. Broken period interest paid by the appellant for acquiring securities - HELD THAT:- Following the reasons given in appellant s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 no disallowance is called for in respect of broken period interest on securities. Accordingly, the addition on account of broken period interest for acquiring securities is deleted. - ITA No. 5259/MUM/2016 - - - Dated:- 22-12-2017 - SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) For the Appellant : Shri R.P. Meena (CIT DR) For the Respondent : Shri S. Ananthan Ms. Lalitha Rameshwaran) (AR) ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plies to all companies including the assessee company and that the AO has wrongly made addition on account of broken period interest. The Ld. CIT (A) following the decision of ITAT rendered in assessee s own case for the A.Ys. 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and in the case of Kurung Thai Bank PLC (ITA No. 3390/Mum/1990) dated 30/09/2010 and Union Bank of India (ITA No. 4702/Mum/2010), decided the first issue in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the Ld. CIT (A) decided the second ground of appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made on account of broken period interest relying on various judicial pronouncements and the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07 and 2008-09. 5. Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITAT rendered in the assessee s own appeals for the aforesaid assessment years, there is no merit in the appeal of the revenue. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the material on record. Vide first ground of appeal, the revenue has challenged the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) that the provisions of section 115JB cannot be applied to the assessee bank. We notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case, ITA No. 2337/M/2011 and ITA No. 2731/M/2011 dated 10/04/2013 for A.Y. 2006-07 and ITA No. 3676/M/2012 dated 09/04/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 and the decision rendered by ITAT, Mumbai in Kuru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not applicable to the appellant Bank, the without prejudice grounds do not require adjudication. In the result, the ground is allowed. 9. Since, the Ld. CIT (A) has decided this ground in accordance with the decision of the co-ordinate Bench rendered in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue. 10. The second ground pertains to addition on account of broken period interest paid by the appellant for acquiring securities. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 dated 12.08.2008. Further, Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation (supra) has also decided this issue in favour of the appellant. It was also submitted that Hon ble ITAT, D Bench, Mumbai in appellant s own case has decided this issue in its favour in ITA No. 2337/M/2011 dated 10.04.2013 for A.Y. 2006-07 and ITA NO. 3676/M/2012 dated 09.04.2014 for A.Y. 2008-09. Respectfully following the above decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court, Jurisdictional High Court and Hon ble ITAT, it is held that the broken period interest paid by the appellant is allowable as deduction in computing the total income. The ground is accordingly, allowed. 5.3 Since the facts are similar, following the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
