TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowed in assessee s own case for AY 2011-12 deleted the addition. Disallowance made on account of ATM machine charges - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case we find that the issuance of ATM Cum Debit Cards to the customers of the assessee bank is part of the business activity of the assessee and there is no enduring benefit to the assessee out of incurring this expenditure. CIT(A) had observed that in the past the department had been accepting this expenditure as a revenue expenditure and we find no change in facts and circumstances of the case for the year under appeal with regard to the impugned issue warranting the department to take Cl different stand. Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of MAT proceedings. 3.1. Heard both and perused the material available on record. We find CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2009-10 vide order dated 13.12.2015. We find that the issue is covered by the order of this Tribunal. The relevant portion in order of CIT(A) is reproduced herein below:- That in Ground No. '16', relate to applying MAT u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act. That the issue is covered in. assessee Bank's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 by Ld. I.T.A.T's order dated 30.12.2015 being I.T.A. Nos. ; 1916 113/K/2013. That following the judgement by the co-ordinate bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of UCO Bank vs. DCIT, it was held by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs: DCIT in ITA No.1768/KoI/2009 dated 27.11.2015 for the A.Y. 2002- 03. The Tribunal order in the case of UCO Bank was challenged by the Revenue in Kolkata High Court, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the matter back to the Tribunal with certain directions. The Hon'ble Tribunal heard the matter afresh and vide their order dated 27.11.2015 have held as follows: Though, section 115JB has been amended to bring all the Companies in its ambit vide Finance Act 2012, w.e.f. 01.4.2013, however, the said amendment is not applicable in the assessment year under consideration. Following the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 7.9. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. 5. Ground No.2 is relating to deletion of disallowance of expenses. 5.1. Heard both and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) by following Rule of Consistency as followed in assessee s own case for AY 2011-12 deleted the addition. The relevant portion in order of CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:- For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. was wrong in disallowing earlier year's expenses amounting to ₹ 31,15,854/- without considering the fact that the liability arose and crystailized during this financial year, moreover, this is the regular method of accounting followed by the assessee; bank, therefore, the disallowance of such expenses amounting to ₹ 31,15,854/- is completely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed hereunder:- Decision The issue is whether the expenditure incurred towards debit cards is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure. It has been submitted by the assessee that the issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional ITAT in their case of A.Y. 2009-10 wherein it has been held as under: We have heard the rival submissions and we find that the issuance of ATM Cum Debit Cards to the customers of the assessee bank is part of the business activity of the assessee and there is no enduring benefit to the assessee out of incurring this expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) had observed that in the past the department had been accepting this expenditure as a revenue expenditure and we find no change in facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee had offered disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of ₹ 1,58,00,000/-. Accordingly, the A.O. made disallowance of ₹ 19,06,57,848/- u/s 14A. It has been submitted before me that the issue is covered by the order of ITAT in their own case fer A.Y. 2009-10. In the said order, it has been held as under: We have heard. the rival submissions and find that the assessee bank has got sufficient own funds to the extent of ₹ 4532.27 crores as on 31.03.2009 which is very much available for making investment of ₹ 242.03 crores and hence it can safely be presumed that no part of borrowed funds were utilized for making investments yielding tax free income. Moreover, the Ld. A.O. had not brought on record any nexus be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
