TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appeals by the revenue are directed against two orders dated 28.12.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai, for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed both the appeals filed by the assessee against assessment orders passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). Since, both the appeals pertain to the same assessee for different assessment years and the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, the same were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1407/MUM/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee bank filed its return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 declaring the total income of ₹ 4,88,77,70,049/- under the normal provisions of the Act and ₹ 6,81,96,49,730/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143 (2) was served on the assessee. The assessee filed a revised return declaring the revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 and issue No. 2 is covered by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court passed in Citibank (supra) and the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal rendered in ACIT vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd . and vice-a-versa, ITA Nos. 4273 to 4275/Mum/2016, ITA No. 4653 to 4655/Mum/2016 dated 06.09.2017. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is in accordance with the decisions aforesaid, there is no merit in the appeal of the revenue and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not controvert the submissions made by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, however, relied on the assessment order passed by the AO. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the material placed before us. The first ground of appeal is general in nature and does not need separate adjudication. So far as the second ground of appeal is concerned, we notice that the assessee had raised the identical issue before the Tribunal in its own appeal, ITA No. 3676/Mum/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 and the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, by following the earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... General Insurance Company Ltd., reported by 2012 IIOL- 690-ITAT-Mum. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the FAA 9.2. We find that the issue of applicability of Section 115JB has been discussed by the B Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Union Bank of India (supra) in favour of the assessee. In that matter Tribunal has held as under:- 18. Ground No. 5 (in ITA No. 4706/M/10 A.Y. 2006-07) relates to applicability of the provisions of Sec. 115JB. 19. This issue is covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kurung Thai Bank PCL (ITA No. 3390/M/90 dt. 30.09.2010. The Ld. CIT (A) however followed the decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2001-02 in ITA No. 9061/M/04. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted as follows:- The appellant further submits that the appellant is not a company under Companies Act but is only deemed to be a company as per the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. Therefore, as held by the Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (82 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax vs. CitiBank (supra), the issue before the Hon ble Supreme Court was that whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was right in holding that the interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of purchase of the securities. The Hon ble High Court had answered the same in favour of the assessee and against the revenue following its earlier decision in the case of American Express Vs. CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom) and distinguishing the decision of Vijaya Bank vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1991 supp. (2) SCC 147. The Hon ble Supreme Court holding that the facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the American Express (supra) dismissed the two Special Leave petitions filed by the revenue and decided the said issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We further notice that in ACIT vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd . and vice-versa similar disallowance was made by the AO. In the first appeal the Ld. CIT (A) following the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank in Income Tax Appeal No. 330 of 2012 dated 23.07.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed deduction claimed on account of broken period interest. The learned Departmental Representative has not brought to our notice any contrary decision on the issue. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court the Hon ble Supreme Court in Citi Bank N.A. (supra) and decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case as referred to above, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Grounds raised by the Revenue in all these appeals are dismissed. 10. In our considered opinion, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) is in accordance with the principals of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Citibank (supra), decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corp . (supra) and in accordance with the decision of coordinate Bench in appellant s own case, ITA No. 2337/M/2011 for the A.Y. 2006-07 and ITA No. 3676/M/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09, we therefore do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A). We accordingly dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue. ITA No.1408/M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
