2017 (12) TMI 1735 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions for 2012-2013 tax year, ruling out section 115JB applicability.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2012-2013, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. It held that section 115JB did not apply ... Provisions of section 115JB applicability to the assessee bank - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case [2013 (4) TMI 752 - ITAT MUMBAI] appellant is not a company under Companies Act but is only deemed to be a company as per the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking)Act,1970.Therefore as held by the Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board [2001 (8) TMI 310 - ITAT MUMBAI] the provisions of Sec. 11 5JB cannot be made applicable to the appellant. Broken period interest paid by the appellant for acquiring securities - HELD THAT:- Following the reasons given in appellant’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 no disallowance is called for in respect of broken period interest on securities. Accordingly, the addition on account of broken period interest for acquiring securities is deleted. Issues:1. Applicability of section 115JB to the assessee company.2. Addition on account of broken period interest.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. The AO determined the total income of the assessee under normal provisions and section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, challenging the AO's additions. The CIT(A) held that section 115JB does not apply to the assessee company based on previous decisions of ITAT and other judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing consistency with earlier ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case and other precedents. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground.2. The second issue pertained to the addition on account of broken period interest. The CIT(A) had ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) based this decision on previous rulings in the assessee's own case for other assessment years and various judicial decisions, including those of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the decision to dismiss the revenue's appeal on this ground as well.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-2013, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues.