TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1998. It is the claim of the assessee that interest on TDS of Rs. 88,07,960/- should be granted from April, 1991 instead of April, 1998. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) declined the allow the grievance of the assessee holding that provisions of Sec. 244(2) clearly apply on the facts of the case because there was delay in curing the defects in TDS certificate. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to interest u/s. 244A for the period starting with 1.4.1991 and ending with 31.3.1998. 5. Aggrieved by this finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been claimed before the lower authorities. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Larsen & Toubro in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 3013 of 2009. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that whatever defect was there in the TDS certificate is not attributable to the assessee because the TDS certificate was issued by the Reserve Bank of India and various other Government agencies, therefore provisions of Sec. 244(2) do not apply on the facts of the case. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....received by it was duly accounted for in its tax computation. The Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco cola Vs CIT 293 ITR 226 squarely apply on the facts of the case and accordingly deleted the said disallowance. 14. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 15. The Ld. DR strongly supported the assessment order. 16. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the First Appellate Authority. The Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the order made u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act wherein the AO has admitted that the State Bank of India has confirmed that MICR charges were duly accounted while making tax payment by SBI. However, for non deposit of tax within the prescribed time limit, the assessee was asked to pay interest. 17. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also the benefit of the order made u/s. 201 (1) & 201(1A) of the Act dated 23.3.2011. We have also the benefit of the copy of notification No. 56/2012(F.No. 275/53/2012-IT(B) dated 31.3.2012 wherein the CBDT has notified that no deduction of tax under Chapte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 366 ITR 505 squarely apply. Therefore, there cannot be any allocation of interest in so far as the computation of disallowance is concerned. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Yrs. 2002-03 to 2004-05 in ITA Nos. 6982 to 6984/M/2013. 25. The DR relied upon the findings of the AO. 26. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. Undoubtedly, in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal has clearly held that Rule 8D is not applicable for the year under consideration, therefore, directed the AO to make some reasonable disallowance. However, we find that the AO has once again computed the disallowance as per the formula given in Rule 8D. We also find that the interest free funds available with the assessee is Rs. 1357.84 crores whereas average investments in assets earning tax free income is at Rs. 815.76 crores. This clearly shows that the assessee is having sufficient interest free funds for making the investments. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case ofReliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 squarely apply which has been followed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and also certain percentage of aggregate advances. 31.1. With our utmost respect to the aforementioned decision of the Coordinate bench, we have to say that the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala 272 ITR 54 was neither brought to the notice of the Tribunal nor it was considered by the Tribunal. On identical set of facts, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after considering the following facts has held accordingly:- "The deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is in respect of the provision made. Therefore, making of a provision for bad and doubtful debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for claiming such deduction. The proviso to clause (vii) of section 36(1) also shows that making of provision equal to the amount claimed as deduction in the account books is necessary for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia). Before the finalisation of the balance-sheet for the assessment year 1985-86 the assessee claimed the deduction under the unamended section 36(1)(viia) but after the finalisation and in view of the amendment made in that secti....