TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Income tax erred in his conclusion that the assessing officer had not examined the issues mentioned in the notice. It was explained in detail in the reply to the notice that each point was examined by the assessing officer and assessing officer has taken one of the possible views and hence action under section 263 was not correct. 3. The assessing officer vide his pre-assessment notice dated 23.1.2015 asquestion no.8, called for the purpose of the bank guarantee and letter from the bank in this regard. Your appellant vide reply dated 9.2.015 had furnished detailed note on the bank guarantee, along with sanction letter from Federal Bank Ltd. The assessing officer has taken one of the possible view after considering the details....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment since the assessing officer has followed the decision of the jurisdictional high court. The assessing officer has taken one of the possible view after considering the details furnished by the appellant and hence the action under section 263 was not warranted. 7. The assessing officer vide his pre-assessment notice dated 23.1.2015 asquestion no.3, called for the details of the loss in trading debited to profit and loss account. Your appellant vide reply dated 9.2.015 had furnished the details called for. The assessing officer has taken one of the possible view after considering the details furnished by the appellant and hence the conclusion of the Principal Commissioner of Income tax that the issue was not examined by the assessing o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Provision for Leave encashment amounting to Rs. 83,670 not disallowed following Kerala HC decision in the case of Hindustan Latex Ltd iv) Loss on trading in shares amounting to Rs. 21 ,30,564 is not considered as loss from speculation business as required under explanation to section 73. 3.1 The assessee filed reply vide letter dated 16.11.2015 and the assessee's authorized representative appeared before the CIT on various hearing dates and submitted that the proposed revision is bad in law because there is no error in the assessment order warranting interference u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee's authorized representative had raised specific points with regard to each of the reasons stated in the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranting interference by CIT u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order passed u/s 263 is to be quashed. For the above proposition, the ld counsel relied on the following orders of the Tribunal: i) ITO vs Snow Tex reinvestment Ltd 129 DTR (Trib) 203 ii) Lohia Securities Ltd vs DCIT 157 ITD 265 iii) Fiduciary shares & Stock Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT - ITA no.321/Mum/2013 iv) Sri Sahul Hammed vs ITO 498/Coch/2015 5.1 The ld DR, on the other hand, submitted that the order of the assessment is bad in law since there is no proper enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer with regard to the points noted by the CIT in his revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, it was submitted by the ld DR that the order passed by the Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other charge in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilized." 6.3 A bank guarantee is a promise from a bank that the liabilities of a debtor will be met in the event that the debtor fails to fulfill the contractual obligations. It is not a borrowing or a debt incurred. It is only a facility extended by the bank for which charges are recovered. Hence, the bank guarantee commission cannot be considered as interest on borrowing. The board notification no. 56/2012 dated 31.12.2012 had clearly held that bank guarantee commission paid to a bank need not suffer deduction of tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Dubai in Peninsular Middle East DMCC. The Income from this investment is not exempt from tax and hence the same need not be considered for disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is error in the assessment order. 6.5 Provision for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 83,670/- The assessee in the statement of total income had mentioned in the footnote that no disallowance was made towards leave encashment, following the decision of the jurisdictional Kerala High Court in the case of Hindustan Latex Ltd. The Assessing Officer has accepted the same while completing the assessment. There is no error in the assessment since the Assessing Officer has followed the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. ....