2020 (3) TMI 1374 - ITAT MUMBAI

Disallowance of "Deferred Payment Guarantee Commission" - HELD THAT:- we noticed that the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of the earlier decision of the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1994-95 & 1996-97. Nothing came into noticed that the finding has been changed and varied. Nothing contrary to the said finding has been produced before us, therefore, by following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1999-2000 bearing [2018 (1) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI], the claim of the assessee has been allowed.

Disallowance of depreciation on matured investments - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (1) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI] the claim of the assessee has been allowed.

Disallowance of payments for scientific research - HELD THAT:- As we find that the issue has been decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1998-99 [2016 (4) TMI 1392 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Nothing came into noticed that the finding has been changed and varied. No law has been produced before us in support of any contention raised by assessee. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances and by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1999-2000, we decide this issue in favour of the revenue against the assessee.

Disallowance of expenses by applying the provisions of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (1) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI] the claim of the assessee has been allowed as the loans granted and the investment made are out of own interest free funds available with the assessee's Bank. No disallowance in relation to interest expenses was warranted as own interest free fund are far exceeding investment.

Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets - HELD THAT:- Assessee has voluntary admitted this fact that this issue has been decided against assessee in the assessee's own case [2018 (1) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI].

Disallowance being payment to SBI Mutual Fund in respect of shortfall arising on redemption of Magnum Triple Scheme 1991 - HELD THAT: As decided in own case [2016 (4) TMI 1392 - ITAT MUMBAI] as relying on [2014 (1) TMI 1586 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] bank had set up in Mutual fund which had floated a scheme under which an assured return of income @ 12.5% was grante16the investors. But, at the time of redemption, the scheme did not have adequate assets nor funds to honor its commitment and consequently, in order to maintain the banks goodwill and reputation, the bank decided to repurchase of units of the scheme at a price at which mutual fund had committed to the investors. The bank claimed the said amount paid towards repurchase of the units as an expenditure - we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee after discussion in detail as reproduced above - Decided in favour of assessee.

Disallowance of unearned income on non-performing assets as envisaged by Section 43D - HELD THAT:- On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we find that this issue has already been remanded by Hon'ble ITAT on the basis of the earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1997-98. Since the matter is already before the AO to decide afresh, therefore, we set aside the finding CIT(A) on this issue and restored the issue before the AO with direction to decide the matter and controversy afresh on similar guidelines which has been given by Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case [2018 (1) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI].

Non-granting of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of non-rural advances written-off as bad debts - HELD THAT:- As relying on the assessee's own case [2018 (1) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI] we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restored the issue before the AO to decide the matter of controversy afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Disallowance of contribution to SBI Retired Employees Medical Benefit Fund - HELD THAT:- As relying on the assessee's own case [2018 (1) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI] provisions of section 40A(9) should not make any harm to the expenditure incurred bonafide, that the contribution by the assessee bank was not disputed by the AO, stating that the same was not bonafide, that the funds were not controlled by the assessee banks, that the bonafide contribution made by the assessee as an employer was not hit by section 9 of section 40A of the Act. In the case under consideration, there is no doubt about genuineness of payment nor it is the case of the AO or FAA that Trust was not bonafide or the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the employees - Decided in favour of assessee.

Disallowance of provisions for bad debts and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute regarding the claim allowed by the AO is proper as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia). When the allowable claim has been accepted by the AO under the provision of section 36(1)(viia) then merely the provision made on the basis of RBI guidelines does not become allowable for deduction in contravention of the provision of section 36(1)(viia). It is pertinent to note that when the claim of deduction specifically provided u/s 36(1)(viia) then the same cannot be allowed by applying any other provision. Accordingly, we do not find any merit or substance in the claim of the assessee. Hence dismissed.

Disallowance of provision in respect of foreign offices - HELD THAT:- Disallowance of provision in respect of foreign offices. Before us, the AR referred to note No.19, of the return of income and the letter submitted on 05.09.2000 along with the annexure which form part of the Paper book. We are of the opinion that the issue needs further verification. Therefore, matter is restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication, who would decide the case after hearing the assessee. Thus In view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1999-2000, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restored the issue before the AO to decide the matter of controversy afresh by following the direction given.

Disallowance of recovery of bad debts written off should not be liable to tax u/s 41(4) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2014 (1) TMI 1887 - ITAT MUMBAI] we restored this issue before the AO to decide the matter of controversy afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law by following the similar guidelines.

Disallowance earned from foreign branches not taxable in India - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2014 (1) TMI 1887 - ITAT MUMBAI] we decide this and restore this issue before the AO to decide the matter of controversy afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law on similar lines.

Disallowance on reservation of seats in the school for children of the bank officers - revenue has argued that the CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, is liable to be set aside - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has decided the issue on the basis of the decision of the CIT(A) in favour of the appellant in its own case for the A.Ys. 1997- 98 & 1998-99. The said order was followed by the CIT(A) for the A.Y. 1999-2000[2018 (1) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI],. Subsequently, the Hon'ble ITAT has also decided the issue for the A.Y. 1992-93 to 1995-96. Since the matter of controversy has already adjudicated by the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1992-93 & 1995-96 in the assessee's favour and there is no change of the decision, therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly and correctly decided the issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.

Addition made on account of interest on securities on accrual basis as the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. DCIT [1998 (10) TMI 93 - ITAT JAIPUR]. The issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue in the earlier A.Y. 1997-98 by the predecessor of the CIT(A) who pass the present order. In view of the above said decision the CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee.