Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dcb Bank Limited (Formerly Development Credit Bank Limited), Mumbai
In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-2014
ITA 62/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2019AY 2013-14
Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit 2(3)(1), M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. (Formerly R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Development Credit Bank Ltd.), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 6Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacd1461F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/05/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Bank Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring The Total Income Of Rs. 49,33,50,936/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Determining The Total Income At Nil After Allowing Set Off Of Loss Of Earlier Years. The Ao Disallowed The Deduction Of Rs. 9,48,81,164/- Claimed By The Assessee, Treating The Broken Period Interest As Part Of The Cost Price Of The Securities Acquired By The Assessee Bank, Disallowed The Amortization Of Securities Premium Of Htm Securities Claimed By The Assessee Amounting To Rs. 4,73,09,872/- Treating The Same As Part Of The Cost Price. The Ao Further Made Assessment Year: 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A
…ions relied on by the Ld. AR. It has been contended by the Ld. AR that the appellant bank has not earned any exempt income during the previous year relevant to the subject assessment year. Hence, respectfully following the decisions of Cheminvest Ltd. V. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Del) in the cases of Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. (supra), Lakhani Marketing Inc. (supra), Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. (supra), no disallowance is called for. Following these decisions, addition made by the AO is deleted. The ground is allowed. 8.5 Since the facts are similar, respectfully following the decisions relied upon by my learned predecessor. a…
