9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us, the bench suggested that this issue may be set aside to the file of the assessing officer in order to enable him to examine this issue afresh. Both the parties agreed to the same. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue in all the three years and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of amortization of premium paid on HTM (Held To Maturity) investments - Held that:- The loss arising on amortization of premium on 'investments held to maturity' has been held to be deductible in the assessee's own case by Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court and the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r noticed that the assessee, indeed, filed a letter withdrawing the claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act and making additional claim of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However, subsequently the assessee has withdrawn its earlier letter during the course of assessment proceeding before finalization of the assessment. Hence, the withdrawal letter given by the assessee, in our view, should not be taken cognizance of. Accordingly, we do not find merit in the said ground of the revenue.- Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd (328 ITR 81), the provisions of Rule 8D is applicable from assessment year 2008-09 and onwards. Further, it is settled proposition that the assessing officer can determine the amount of disallowance in terms of Rule 8D only if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, that too, after having regard to the accounts of the assessee. In the instant cases, the contention of the assessee is that the investments have been made out of own funds and hence there is no requirement of making disallowance of interest component. Further, it is contended that the securities are held as stock in trade and hence there is no requirement of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the alternative, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree years and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh in all the three years by duly considering the various case law relied upon by the assessee and also by duly addressing various types of contentions of the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 5. The common ground available in all the three years in the appeals filed by the revenue relates to the disallowance of amortization of premium paid on HTM (Held To Maturity) investments. Following amounts have been disallowed in each of the years:- Assessment year 2008-09 Rs.288.38 crores Assessment year 2009-10 Rs.444.22 crores Assessment year 2010-11 Rs.440.76 crores. The Ld Counsel for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue. The facts relating to this issue are stated in brief. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) in respect of Provision for bad and doubtful debts to the tune of ₹ 351.06 crores in his return of income. It also claimed deduction of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 1655.47 crores. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee filed a letter dated 13.8.2012, wherein it withdrew the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and consequently sought to enhance the deduction of bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act to ₹ 1923.96 crores. When the assessing officer was examining the revised claim, the assessee withdrew its letter dated 13.8.2012 referred above. 8. The assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which no claim made by the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) shall be allowed only in respect of the branches falling in category (a), since there is no confusion in respect of this category. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) held that the deduction shall not be available in respect of the remaining three categories. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to allow deduction in respect of category (a) advances, which was worked out by him at ₹ 17.75 crores. In addition to the above, the Ld CIT(A) also directed the assessing officer to allow deduction of 7.5% of the total income computed before making deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) and Chapter VIA of the Act. 10. Though the assessee is aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
