TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') and the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the said reassessment proceedings. The Appellant Bank prays that the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act are invalid and the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated March 28, 2015 be quashed accordingly. 2 Without prejudice to Ground no. 1 above, assuming without accepting that Your Honours is of the view that the re-opening of assessment proceedings is valid, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ACIT has erred in disallowing broken period interest of Rs. 80,79,79,711 paid on purchase of securities during FY 2006-07 and held as stock-in-trade as on March 31, 2007 and the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the decision of the learned ACIT. The learned ACIT be directed to allow broken period interest of Rs. 80,79,79,711 paid on purchase of securities during FY 2006-07 and held as stock-in-trade as on March 31, 2007 as a deduction and reduce the total income accordingly. 2A Without prejudice to Ground no. 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, assuming without accepting that You....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on 27-02-2009, determining total income at Rs. 17,14,63,57,479/- by making various additions/disallowances. Thereafter, assessment has been re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act for the reasons recorded, as per which the income chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment on account of deduction claimed towards Broken Period Interest on securities purchased and treated as stock in trade. In response to the notice, the assessee vide its letter dt. 27-01-2014, requested to treat the return filed on 18-02-2009 as return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148. The assessee also requested for the reasons for reopening and the same was provided to assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act along with notice u/s. 142(1) was issued and served. In response to notices, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed various details, as called for. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO called upon the assessee to explain as to why Broken Period Interest paid on securities held as stock in trade shall not be disallowed? In response, assessee has filed detailed submissions along....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the income chargeable to tax has been escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147. Insofar as the issue involved in merits, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO by following the predecessor's order for AY. 2008-09, where it was held that assessee has taken out interest accrued in Profit & Loss A/c but has not shown any computation of income and expenditure has been claimed, which means thus a reduction of taxable profit. Thus, in the light of the facts of the case, such expenditure cannot be allowed. Therefore, the findings of the AO are approved and disallowance of Broken Period Interest expenditure is sustained. Insofar as the issue of adjustment made towards book profit computed u/s. 115JB of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) by following the order of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the AY. 2005-06, deleted adjustment made by the AO towards book profit computed u/s. 115JB of the Act in respect of disallowance of Broken Period Interest. 7. Similarly, the issue of computation of interest due to the assessee u/s. 244A of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) by following the Tribunal's order in assessee's own case for the AY. 2004-05, restored the matter back to the file of AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en escaped assessment, in respect of excess deduction claimed towards Broken Period Interest paid on securities acquired and treated as stock in trade. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the case law cited by the Ld.AR for the assessee. Admittedly in this case, assessment for the impugned assessment year has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. It is also an admitted fact that assessment has been re-opened after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. When the assessment has been re-opened after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, the pre-condition for reopening of assessment is that there should be failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for completion of assessment. Unless there is an allegation by the AO on the part of the assessee to disclose necessary facts for completion of assessment, the assessment cannot be re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act. In this case, on perusal of reasons recorded by the AO, we find that there is no finding from the AO tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emic in nature and hence the same are dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 4842/Mum/2017: 13. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. ''On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 115JB of the income Tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to the assessee to whom proviso to sub-section (2) of section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956, applies i.e., companies which are not required to prepare its profit & loss account in accordance with Part II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956 without appreciating that under section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, every company is mandatorily required to prepare profit & loss account in accordance with the provisions of Part II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956, for Income Tax purposes". 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment to section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to bring all the companies (including companies to whom proviso to sub-section (2) of secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ularly called as 'MAT') on book profits u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act in the case of banks in favour of the assessee vide appellate orders passed by the tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA no. 1498/Mum/2011 , vide orders dated 09.04.2014 for AY 2001-02 and orders passed by tribunal in ITA no. 3002/Mum/2014 for AY 2005-06, vide orders dated 03.08.2016. While deciding appeal for AY 2001-02, the tribunal has also considered the amendment brought in the Section 115JB of the 1961 Act by Finance Act,2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 which was held to be not applicable to the assessment year under consideration before the tribunal viz. AY 2001- 02 in ITA no. 1498/Mum/2011. The impugned assessment year before us is AY 2007-08 which is also prior to amendment in Section 115JB by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013. Similar view was taken by the tribunal for AY 2005-06 in ITA no. 3002/Mum/2014 in favour of the assessee vide orders dated 03.08.2016 in assessee's own case, wherein tribunal followed its own decision for AY 2006-07. Similar view as to non applicability of minimum alternate tax (MAT) on book profits computed u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act was taken by Kolkatta-tribunal in ITA No. 1768/Kol/2009 fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... followed the decision rendered in the assessee's own case in ITA No.1498/Mum/2011 relating to AY 2001-02. Accordingly he prayed that this issue may be decided in accordance with the decision taken by the co-ordinate benches. 4. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. Consistent with the view taken in AY 2006-07, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and hold that the provisions of sec. 115JB shall not be applicable for both the years under consideration." Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Mumbai-tribunal for AY 2005-06 in assessee's own case which followed the decision of Mumbai-tribunal for AY 2006-07 in assessee's own case , we hold that provisions of Section 115JB shall not be applicable to the assessee bank for the impugned assessment year under consideration viz. AY 2007-08. The ground no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the assessee. The appeal of the Revenue on these ground no. 1 and 2 stood dismissed. We order accordingly". 15.1. In this view of this matter and consistent with the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO....