Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) and also the amended Clause(b) read with proviso to Section 211(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, we find there is a requirement of verification of facts whether the assessee is a Banking Company or Corporation or otherwise. The orders of the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(Appeals) are silent on the aspect of the arguments of the assessee that it is not a Banking Company. To that extent, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is not a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) stands erroneous so far as the interpretation of Explanation 3 of the Section 115JB of the Act. Explanation commencing on or before 01.04.2012 should be properly interpreted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the remand proceedings. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we remand the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) who shall pass a speaking order after hearing the submissions of the assessee on the aspect of applicability of provision 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is also directed to adjudicate the issue in line with the status of the assessee whether it is Banking Company or Corporation or otherwise, procedure of computation of income provided in section 115JB of the Act, facts of thecaseetc. after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sections 14A, 36, 40, 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961— Loss of valuation— These are four cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee in relation to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. First the revenue appeals in ITA No. 81/PUN/2018 & ITA No.585/PUN/2018 were taken for the assessment year 2013-14 & 2014-15 for adjudication. The issue raised in present appeal is identical to the one already adjudicated by the Tribunal and no contrary decision/material has been placed on record by the Revenue, the ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal on the issue of disallowance of loss on valuation of securities held under HTM category is dismissed. The appeal of Revenue was dismissed.
Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is fair and reasonable and same does not call for any interference. Hence, grounds raised by the Revenue in both the appeals are dismissed. In ITA No.114/PUN/2018 and ITA No.780/PUN/2018, the assessee has raised common grounds of appeal.  In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the claim made by the appellant u/s 36[1 ][viia] of the I.T. Act 1961 to Rs. 111,72,83,312/- as against the claim of Rs. 706,21,02,484/- made by the appellant. Tribunal held that the order of CIT(Appeals) stands rroneous so far as the interpretation of Explanation 3 of the Section 115JB of the Act. Explanation commencing on or before 01.04.2012 should be properly interpreted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the remand proceedings. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we remand the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) who shall pass a speaking order after hearing the submissions of the assessee on the aspect of applicability of provision 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) is also directed to adjudicate the issue in line with the status of the assessee whether it is Banking Company or Corporation or otherwise, procedure of computation of income provided in section 115JB of the Act, facts of the case etc. after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, ground No.5 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Appeals of the assessee in ITA No.114/PUN/2018 and ITA No.780/PUN/2018 are allowed for statistical purposes. In the combined result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. --- Deputy CIT vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA.[2020] 23 ITCD Online 38 (PUNE)