9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee claiming the lease rentals to be adjusted towards the cost of acquisition of the property or machinery, which is leased out. The Guidance Note of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India providing for separation of capital recovery element and finance income has been approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. Hence, the said question also has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. MAT - computing minimum alternate tax payable under Section 115JA, the provision for bad and doubtful debts has to be added back under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA(2), which speaks of the provisions made for meeting liabilities - Held that:- The Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT] categorically held that the addition made under clause(c); of the provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be permitted. However, clause (g) as noticed in the question has now been introduced, which has retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 onwards. That when the Tribunal considered the issue, clause (g) was not introduced, which was introd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 90/-. Then, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the reduction that has been occasioned in the market value, which is the loss suffered by the assessee. In the subsequent year, if the market value exceeds the cost price and the same reaches ₹ 105/-, the question is as to what is the addition to be made. Then, what is to be adopted is the cost price, since what is required as per the RBI guidelines is to show the profits in accordance with the cost price or the market value whichever is lower. The question of additions made for appreciation in the value of securities also has to be answered in favour of the assessee Excess bad debts written off over and above the existing provisions in non-rural branches can be claimed as an expense without setting off against the existing provision for bad debts for rural branches. The question is covered in favour of the assessee-Bank by the decision of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Levy of interest under Section 234C - Held that:- We cannot accede to the view that considerable advance tax payment would absolve the liability of interest if it arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is made exclusively by the employer. The specific question raised is also as to whether the second proviso to Section 43B being brought into the statute book on 01.04.2004, the deduction is impermissible insofar as the payment to pension fund having been made after the due dates. The Honourable Supreme Court in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.] has found that the amendment by introduction of a proviso to Section 43B has to be read retrospectively to give full effect thereto. Hence, the question stands answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue upholding the order of the Tribunal, which affirmed the deduction as granted by the first appellate authority. 4. The second question in ITA No.3/2010 is also covered in favour of the assessee as found by the Honourable Supreme Court in (2018) 404 ITR 409 (SC) [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.]. The issue of lease equalization charges arose in the context of the assessee claiming the lease rentals to be adjusted towards the cost of acquisition of the property or machinery, which is leased out. The Guidance Note of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or by the assessee- Bank. ITA No.23/2010, hence, shall stand remanded. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 11.01.2019 and the Tribunal shall consider the issue expeditiously, especially noticing the fact that the assessment is of the year 1999-2000. 7. The question on treatment of loss on amortisation of securities purchased for a price and then sold or redeemed at a lower price, arises in ITA Nos.97, 85 and 82/2010, which appeals are for the assessment years 2000-01, 2003-04 and 2004-05, respectively. The assessee purchases securities at face value or otherwise at a premium. When purchase is made at a premium and the same is redeemed on maturity, the assessee gets only the face value of the security so purchased. Similarly, when the security is sold before the period of maturity, then the assessee at times suffers a loss for reason of the market value having fallen. The assessee claimed write off of such loss in the years at which the assessee held the security, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in ITA No.946/2009 [Commissioner of Income Tax v. South Indian Bank Ltd.], the reasoning of which is extract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the reduction that has been occasioned in the market value, which is the loss suffered by the assessee. However, in the subsequent year, if the market value exceeds the cost price and the same reaches ₹ 105/-, the question is as to what is the addition to be made. Then, what is to be adopted is the cost price, since what is required as per the RBI guidelines is to show the profits in accordance with the cost price or the market value whichever is lower. The question of additions made for appreciation in the value of securities also has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 10. Yet another issue arising in ITA Nos.85 and 82/2010 for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 is as to whether the excess bad debts written off over and above the existing provisions in nonrural branches can be claimed as an expense without setting off against the existing provision for bad debts for rural branches. The question is covered in favour of the assessee-Bank by the decision of the Honoruabel Supreme Court in (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) [Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax]. The question is answere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
