9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given in the affidavit is, that the assessee had filed an application for rectification u/s. 154 before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer rejected the same vide order dated 30-09-2014. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the rejection of application u/s. 154. The said appeal of the assessee is still pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for final adjudication. The assessee had also filed appeal against the assessment order dated 18-12-2012 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the same against the assessee vide order dated 23-10-2013 which was received by the assessee on 19-11-2013. The limitation fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowed the above claim of the assessee vide order dated 18-12- 2012. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT reported as 187 ITR 541 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. reported as 316 ITR 391 (Raj.) rejected the claim of the assessee with regard to broken period interest. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further disallowed the claim of the assessee with regard to amortization of premium on Govt. Securities by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt of India in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (supra). Similarly, in respect of amortization of premium on Govt. Securities the authorities below have disallowed the same by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. Joint CIT (supra). The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6. Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. In appeal the assessee has raised 7 grounds. The ground no. 1 in appeal relates to the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of broken period interest amounting to `66,49,550/- and in ground no. 2 the assessee has assailed the findings of Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted out that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Jurisdiction High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn Ltd vs CIT reported in 258 ITR 601 (Bom). The ld DR, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd, reported in 316 ITR 391 (Raj). Though, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has decided the issue against the assessee after considering the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn Ltd vs CIT reported in 258 ITR 601 (Bom); however, we are bound by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The CIT(A) has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the issue in favour of the assessee; therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the ld CIT(A), qua, this issue." 8. When the Department carried the matter in appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court the following question was framed: "(B) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, in spite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 391 (Raj)?" 9. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decided the issue in favaour of the assessee by holding as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the RBI guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 32o ITR 577 (SC)?" 11. The Hon'ble High Court decided this issue in favour of the assessee by placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. reported as 366 ITR 416 (Bom). The relevant extract of the findings of Hon'ble High Court reads as under : "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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
