9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1585 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 36 (1) (viia) - assessee has claimed the deduction incorrectly - AO questioned the quantum of deduction and held that it would be restricted to the amount of reserve created in the books of account - HELD THAT - We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In the present case the issue squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in case of the assessee for assessment year 2012 13 2018 (10) TMI 359 - ITAT DELHI AO himself admitted in the assessment order that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) which is 10% of the aggregate rural advances of the bank. The aforesaid claim was allowable to the assessee as per the ratio laid down in Southern Technologies Ltd. 2010 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. 2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2011-12 - Disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - Interpretation of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) vis-a-vis section 32(1) - Application of judicial precedents - Opportunity denied to assessee - Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Analysis: The appeal pertains to the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act by a banking company for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction and computed the total income of the assessee at a higher amount than declared. The CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction, quantified not based on the amount provided in the accounts but on a percentage of total income and rural advances. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents and statutory interpretation to support the allowance of the deduction. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of section 36(1)(viia) vis-a-vis section 32(1) of the IT Act. The CIT(A) emphasized that the language in both sections is identical, indicating that the assessee should be entitled to the deduction as claimed. The CIT(A) also referred to the Supreme Court's decision, highlighting that a construction favoring the assessee should be adopted when two reasonable interpretations of a taxing provision exist. Moreover, the CIT(A) considered conflicting judicial decisions, particularly those of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and Kerala High Court, to support the assessee's claim for deduction. The CIT(A) applied the principle that when faced with conflicting decisions, the one favoring the assessee should prevail, as established in the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court. The appeal was further supported by the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for another assessment year, where the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) was allowed. The coordinate bench's decision was based on detailed reasoning and statutory interpretation, aligning with the CIT(A)'s findings. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s order and the coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle of consistency with previous judgments and statutory provisions, emphasizing the entitlement of the assessee to the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) as claimed. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the importance of statutory interpretation and judicial precedents in tax matters, ensuring a fair and consistent application of the law.
|
