9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of nine appeals, out of which seven appeals are filed by Assessee-Bank and two Cross by Revenue. Since common Grounds of appeals arising from same set of facts are involved in all appeals, these appeals are taken up, heard together and being decided by this common order. 2. First we shall take up the appeal of Assessee-Bank vide ITA No. 3639/Mum/2004 for AY-2000-01 . Brief facts of the case are that Assessee- Bank filed return of income on 29.11.2000 for relevant AY, declaring total income of Rs NIL. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 27.03.2002. In revised return the total income remained the same at Rs. NIL. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. After serving the notice u/s 143(2), the AO framed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oc amount of ₹ 56,10,34,086/- to the Book Profits. The Appellants submit that there is no provision under which such adhoc expenses could be added to Book Profits and that, therefore, such addition be deleted. II. COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT 1. The CIT -A erred in upholding disallowance of non-rural Bad Debts written off to the extent of ₹ 69,85,05,652/-, since such write-off, together with the write-off of rural bad debts of ₹ 35,06,62,782/- did not exceed the Provision of Rural Debts of ₹ 141,41,99,437/- allowed during the year. (a) The Appellants submit that sub-section (viia) of Section 36(1) allows two distinct deductions computed differently as set out be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95. The Appellants submit that the said payment had been made for services rendered outside India which were not subject to tax in India. In any case, these organisations did not maintain any permanent Establishment, in India and were therefore not liable to tax in India. The Appellants therefore pray that the disallowance made by the DCIT on a wrong understanding of facts and of law be deleted. 3. The CIT -A erred in upholding allocation, on an adhoc basis, interest expense of ₹ 54,44,46,000/- and business expenses amounting to ₹ 1,65,88,086/- to Income from Dividends and Interest exempt under Section (23G), etc. and disallowing the same in computing Income from Business. The Appellants submit that no ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .com 239 (Mum), (b) The Union bank of India v. ACIT (ITA No. 4702 to 4706/Mum/10), (c) Times bank Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 4355/Mum/2008) , (d) State bank of Hyderabad v. DCIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 312 (Hyd. ITAT), (e) Dena Bank v. ACIT (ITA No. 237/M/2002), (f) UCO Bank v. DCIT (2015) 64 taxmann.com 51 (Kolkata ITAT). The Ld AR for assessee further submitted that all the other Grounds raised in the appeals are also covered in favour of assessee-bank and furnished a chart, along with the copies of the decisions. Ld AR for the assessee further argued that in case the assessee succeeds on the additional Grounds of appeal, the discussions on other grounds of appeals would become academic. Ld DR for Revenue relied upon the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks of accounts in terms of requirements of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, and the assessee is to prepare its books of accounts in terms of the provisions of Banking Regulation Act. It is thus contended that the provisions of Section 115JB do not apply in the case of banking companies which are not required to prepare the profit and loss account as per the requirements of Part II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. Since the provisions of Section 115 JB do not apply to the assessee company, the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment are clearly wrong and insufficient. We are urged to quash the reassessment proceedings on this short ground. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, vehemently relies upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar reason we uphold the plea of the assessee. The provisions of Section 115 JB do not apply to the assessee, and, as such, the Assessing Officer was in error in concluding that income had escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The very initiation of reassessment proceedings was bad in law, and we quash the same . 5. The similar view was approved by the Co-ordinate Bench in case(s) of Union Bank of India, Times Bank Ltd., State Bank of Hyderabad, Dena Bank and UCO Bank (Supra) by Mumbai Tribunal, and in case of UCO Bank(supra) by Co-ordinate Bench of Kolkata Tribunal, thus the Ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed. 6. As we have already held that MAT provision u/s 115JA/115JB are not applicable against the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
