9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Madras Industrial Investment Corp.Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court ) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1664/Ahd/2012, 57/Ahd/2014, 946/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2015 - Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member And Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Jigar M. Patel, AR ORDER Per Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member This bunch of three appeals; one by the Revenue and the other two by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Gandhinagar ( CIT(A) in short) pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 dated 11/05/2012, 01/11/2013 27/02/2015 respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ras Industrial Investment Corp.Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 802 (SC) and also following his earlier decision passed in assessee s own case for AY 2008-09, deleted the disallowance. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue is appeal before us. 3. At the outset, ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench (ITT A Bench Ahmedabad) in assessee s own case in ITA No.2059/Ahd/2011 for AY 2008-09, dated 05/06/2015. 3.1. The ld.Sr.DR did not controvert the submission of the ld.counsel for the assessee, however he supported the assessment order and reasoning of the AO for making disallowance of expenditure. 4. We have heard the parties, peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the years till maturity of the securities is allowable. The ground of appeal is allowed. The facts of the issue remaining the same, I do not find any reason to deviate from the decision taken by me in the earlier assessment year i.e. AY 2008-09 in the case of the assessee. Therefore, the ground of appeal is allowed. The AO is directed to verify the calculation of amortization over the years till maturity while giving the appeal effect. 4.1. The Revenue had preferred an appeal against the abovementioned decision of the ld.CIT(A) pertaining to AY 2008-09 and the Coordinate Bench (ITAT A Bench Ahmedabad) in ITA No.2509/Ahd/2011(supra) has decided this issue in favour of assessee by observing as under:- 4. After going through r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke up the assessee s appeals in ITA No.57/Ahd/2014 and 946/Ahd/2015 for AY 2010-11 2011-12 respectively. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:- For AY 2010-11 The appellant respectfully submits as under: 1. That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 1,67,26,323/-, being the appellant s claim for deduction in respect of amortization of premium on investments, treating the same as expenditure of capital nature, not allowable under the I.T. Act. The learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have allowed the appellant s claim, in view of the fact that the identical issue in AY 2007-08 to AY 2009-10 was decided in favour of the appellant by his learned predece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y held that premium on amortization of investments in the case of Banks is allowable as revenue expenditure. i. M/s.Krishna Grameen Bank, Gulbarga vs. Addl.CIT (ITA 146/Bangalore/2011) ii. Nagar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ahmednagar vs. Addl.CIT (ITA 711/Pune/2013) iii. ACIT, Nasik vs. Ozer Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd. [41 taxman 110 (Pune)] It is indeed unfortunate that the learned CIT(Appeals) did not even discuss in his Appellate Order as to why he chose not to follow the directly binding ITAT decisions on the very point under consideration before him. The appellant requests that leave be granted to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before final hearing of the appeal. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
