9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed before us, we therefore agree with the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer accordingly Deduction for bad debts written off - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [ 2015 (11) TMI 1058 - ITAT MUMBAI] Tribunal has allowed identical claim has followed the decision rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank [ 2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd [ 2013 (2) TMI 40 - SC ORDER] . We also notice that the new Explanation 2, which covers both rural and non-rural advances, has been inserted u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014 only and hence it cannot have retrospective effect, since it affects substantive rights of the assessee. Loss on revaluation of trading derivatives - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in own case [ 2013 (1) TMI 992 - ITAT MUMBAI] as relying on UCO Bank [1999 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] Deduction u/s 80LA - assessee failed to file audit report with the return - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [ 2015 (11) TMI 1058 - ITAT MUMBAI] followed the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Web Comerce India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2008 (12) TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in directing to calculate the interest u/s. 24A of the I.T. Act, 1961 by relying on the ITAT decision in the case of Interest Tax/04 05/M/2010 dated 13.5.2011 for A.Y 1999-2000 and 2000-01 in its own case without appreciating that the case law relied upon by ITAT differs on the facts of the case and the Hoin ble Supreme Court has in civil appeal No. 4366 of 2012 distinguished the decision in Sandvik Asia . 3. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated and the Departmental Representative agreed that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal, Chennai Bench in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the case of Indian Overseas Bank vide ITA No. 1147/Mds/2008. We find that similar issue was considered by the Tribunal (supra) at para-6 on page-5 of its order and at para-9 on page-7, the Tribunal observed as under: Since, the definition of Section 2 begins with the term unless context otherwise requires which means that the definition provided u/s. 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not exclusive. Moreover, as per Sec. 2(45) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the income of the assessee is to be computed as per the manner prescribed in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rule 8D of the Act and ground No. 2 relates to the claim made by the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 7. In so far as ground No. 1 is concerned, an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case in assessment year 2008-09 in ITA Nos 4678 4842/M/2013. The issue finds placed at para-5 on page-2 of its order and at para-11, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to examine this issue afresh. Respectfully following the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in assesee s own case (supra), we direct the AO to decide the issue in line with the directions given by the Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09. Ground No. 1 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In so far as Ground No. 2 is concerned, an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assesee s own case in A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA Nos. 4678 4842/M/2013. The issue find placed at para-12 on page-5 of the order of the Tribunal and after considering the facts and the submissions, the Tribunal at para-15 of its order on page-8 held as under: Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore this matter to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1961 to the extent of provision made in books for bad and doubtful debts of ₹ 7,29,89,35,155/ - instead of the eligible amount as per the said section. 11. Issues raised vide ground No. 1were also there in assessment year 2008-09 and the Tribunal has considered identical issue in ITA Nos. 4678 4842/M/13. The issue find placed at para-16 on page-8 of the Tribunal s order and at para-17, the Tribunal s finding read as under: We notice that the Tribunal has allowed identical claim in the assesee s own case in A.YT 2007-08, vide its order dated 18.1.2003 passed in ITA Nos. 631/M/2010 6349/M/2010. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (343 ITR 270) and also in the case of CIT Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd (2012)( 349 ITR 705). We also notice that the new Explanation 2, which covers both rural and non-rural advances, has been inserted u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014 only and hence it cannot have retrospective effect, since it affects substantive rights of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the decision rendered by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2005- 06 is a later decision and since the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court, we are inclined to follow the same. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the AO. 16. However, before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed the decision of the Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Sarvodaya Sahakari Bank Ltd. in ITA No. 779 (Ahd) of 2011. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that this issue need to be decided afresh in the light of the findings of the Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel. We accordingly set aside the issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh in the light of the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Sarvodaya Sahakari Bank Ltd (supra). This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 6922/M/13 is partly allowed for statistical Purpose and ITA No. 6921/M/13 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 6980/M/13 is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
