AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee is a Scheduled bank carrying on banking business. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the issue relating to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act is being contested in all the three years. The Ld A.R submitted that the said disallowance is not warranted since the own funds available with the assessee exceeds the borrowed funds. It was further submitted that the identical disallowances made in the earlier years have been deleted by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay also, by considering the fact that the own funds available with the assessee exceeds the borrowed funds. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the provisions of Rule 8D was introduced in the I.T Rules and they were held t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowance, if the investments made are strategic in nature. 4. We notice that the assessee is putting forth its contentions against the impugned disallowance from different angles. All those contentions can be appreciated only if the relevant facts are available before us. Further, some of the contentions are raised for the first time before us. The Ld A.R further submitted that the presumption of use of own funds is available, when both the own funds and loan funds are mixed up. For this proposition, he placed reliance on some of the decisions rendered by the jurisdictional High Court in its own case and also in some other cases. Even though the assessee has contended that it has used only its own funds for making the investments, in our ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s own case by Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court and the decision of the High Court is reported as CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd in (2014)(366 ITR 505). Since this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court and since the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) in all the three years is in accordance with the decision of jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on this issue. 6. The next issue relates to the disallowance of broken period interest. This issue is available in the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2009-10 and the appeal filed by the assessee in AY 2010-11. The Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue has also been decided in favour of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he extent of 7.5% of total income computed before allowing deduction under Chapter VIA and u/s 36(1)(viia) plus 10% of the aggregate average advances made by rural branches is allowable as deduction. Hence the assessing officer examined the list of rural branches submitted by the assessee and came to the conclusion that the list submitted by the assessee did not answer the definition of rural branches as given in Explanation under sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the entire claim of Rs. 351.06 crores made by the AO u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. In respect of bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the AO allowed the deduction to the extent of Rs. 1655.47 crores, i.e., the amount claimed by the assessee in its r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oning given by the Ld CIT(A). We have earlier noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has allowed deduction only in respect of those branches, where there is no doubt about their classification as "rural branches". In respect of other branches, no fresh material was placed to contradict the findings given by Ld CIT(A). 11. In the appeal filed by the revenue, it is contended that the assessee has withdrawn the claim and hence the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claim. We have earlier noticed that the assessee, indeed, filed a letter withdrawing the claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act and making additional claim of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However, subsequently the assessee has withdrawn its earlier letter during the course of....