TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consent of the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we shall take up ITA No.1972/Kol/2017 filed by the Revenue. ITA No.1972/KOL/2017 3. Ground No.1 is relating to deletion of addition made on account of MAT proceedings. 3.1. Heard both and perused the material available on record. We find CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 vide order dated 13.12.2015. We find that the issue is covered by the order of this Tribunal. The relevant portion in order of CIT(A) is reproduced herein below:- "That in Ground No. '16', relate to applying MAT u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012. Respectfully following the co-ordinate bench decision of this tribunal in the case of UCO Bank (supra), we also hold accordingly. Hence, the ground no.2 raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed. " The above decision has been given by the Hon'ble Tribunal relying on their own judgement in the case of UCO Bank vs: DCIT in ITA No.1768/KoI/2009 dated 27.11.2015 for the A.Y. 2002- 03. The Tribunal order in the case of UCO Bank was challenged by the Revenue in Kolkata High Court, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the matter back to the Tribunal with certain directions. The Hon'ble Tribunal heard the matter afresh and vide their order dated 27.11.2015 have held as follows: "Though, secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal, I am of the opinion that provision of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee for the impugned assessment year. The appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed." 4. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. Ground No.2 is relating to deletion of disallowance of expenses. 5.1. Heard both and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) by following Rule of Consistency as followed in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 deleted the addition. The relevant portion in order of CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:- "For that on the facts of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 is relating to deletion of disallowance made on account of ATM machine charges. 7.1. Heard both and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) followed the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 21.11.2016. The relevant portion in order of CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:- Decision "The issue is whether the expenditure incurred towards debit cards is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure. It has been submitted by the assessee that the issue is covered by the decision of jurisdictional ITAT in their case of A.Y. 2009-10 wherein it has been held as under: "We have heard the rival submissions and w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce in the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 deleted the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and confirmed the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The relevant portion in order of CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:- Decision The issue is regarding disallowance u/s14A made by the A.O. of Rs. 17,48,97348/- and Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs. 1,57,60,500/-. The assessee had offered disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs. 1,58,00,000/-. Accordingly, the A.O. made disallowance of Rs. 19,06,57,848/- u/s 14A. It has been submitted before me that the issue is covered by the order of ITAT in their own case fer A.Y. 2009-10. In the said order, it has been held as under: "We have heard. the rival subm....