9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] and in absence of any distinguishable features brought to our notice by the Ld. Departmental Representative, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the disallowance. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.41 and 616/PN/2015 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2016 - SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM For The Assessee : Shri S.N. Doshi For The Revenue : Shri Hitendra Ninawe ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : ITA No.41/PN/2015 filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 08-10-2014 of the CIT(A)-III, Pune relating to Assessment Year 2010-11 and ITA No. 616/PN/2015 filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 11-02-2015 of the CIT(A)-7, Pune relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. Since identical grounds have been taken by the Revenue in both the appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. First we take up ITA No.41/PN/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11. In grounds of appeal No.1 to 7 the revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,58,24,201/- made by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing entire interest on loans and advances to its income expenditure accounts, the interest on sticky advances was held to be liable to be considered as income of the assessee. Holding so, the interest shown as receivable on NPAs amounting to ₹ 58,24,201/- was added by the AO to the income of the assessee bank. 6. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following various decisions deleted the addition. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. After hearing both the sides we find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y.2 008-09. We find the Tribunal in ITA No.888/PN/2012 order dated 26-09-2013 decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under : 5. The next issue is with regard to addition of ₹ 22,32,767/- which represents the interest receivable on non-performing assets (NPA) not taken to the profit and loss account as per the RBI guidelines. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Osmanabad Janta Sah. Bank Ltd. in ITA No.795/PN/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08 dated 31-08-2012 wherein this issue has been decided by observing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to follow the Reserve Bank of India Directions, 1998. Thus, the deletion of the additions on account of interest on sticky advances was justified. 10. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court cited (Supra) as well as the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in the A.Y. 2008-09 we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is upheld. Grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are accordingly dismissed. 11. In grounds of appeal No. 8 to 11 the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 87,048/- made by the AO on account of amortization of premium on investment. 12. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee bank has debited an amount of ₹ 87,048/- towards amortization of premium on securities. On being questioned by the AO it was submitted that it has amortized the amount of such premium paid on Government Securities which are held under the category 'Held to Maturity' only, as per the provisions and rules of RBI, which are mandatory to all banks. However, the Assessing Officer was not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing substantial question of law was raised : c Whether the ITAT is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction with respect to the diminution in value of the investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. CIT (320 ITR 577)? 6.1 We find the Hon ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue by observing as under : 7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 04th July, 2014 in Income Tax Appellate No. 1079 of 2012, Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. M/s. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd., ). Mr. Suresh Kumar fairly stated that question (C) reproduced above is covered by the said order. In view thereof, we are of the view that even question (C) does not raise any substantial question of law that requires an answer from us. 6.2 We further find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhavani Urban Co-op Bank Ltd.(Supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
