Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1187 - AT - Income TaxDeffered payment guarantee commission - taxation in which year? - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the entire deffered payment guarantee commission though received in advance by the assessee bank cannot be taxed during the year of receipt but has to be spread to the relevant years to which it belongs. We fail to understand when the issue is no longer res-integra having been decided by the Tribunal numerous times in favour of the assessee and order decided by the Tribunal has also been given effect to, then why the issue has been raised time and again only for the purpose of generating unnecessary litigation. So ground No.1 of assessee’s appeal is allowed. Disallowance of depreciation on matured security on the ground that since the provision made by the assessee is not “ascertained liability” and it also cannot be taken that there is actual change in the market value of security. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO - HELD THAT:- Following the consistent orders passed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, which have been confirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court [2016 (8) TMI 1441 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided this issue against the assessee, hence ground No.2 is decided against the assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that in the instant case disallowance to the extent of 1% of the exempt income under section 14A is to be made. So we accordingly direct the AO to disallow 1% of the exempt income under section 14A. Disallowance claimed by the assessee on account of depreciation on leased assets - HELD THAT:- Following the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05, we are of the considered view that since the issue has already been decided against the assessee of the assessee’s appeal are decided against the assessee. Disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) qua “write off” of non rural advances - HELD THAT:- By following the various decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. [2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT], CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT], DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2013 (2) TMI 40 - SC ORDER], Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [1999 (7) TMI 60 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and in case of CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007 (2) TMI 187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts (other than in respect of rural advances). Addition by reducing depreciation/taxing appreciation in the value of securities held as available for sale (AFS) having been held for trading category (HFT) - HELD THAT:- Since this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2008-09, which has been accepted by the Revenue, we are of the considered view that the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have erred in making disallowance of depreciation/reducing of depreciation on appreciation in the value of securities held as available for sale by treating the same for trading category. So ground No.6 is determined in favour of the assessee. Disallowing allowing the deduction for the education cess on income tax paid for the year - HELD THAT:- As relying on Sesa Goa Ltd. [2020 (3) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we are of the considered view that education cess on income tax paid by the assessee is an allowable deduction, hence AO is directed to allow the same. Payment to various schools towards reservation of seats for the children of the bank officers by including the same in staff welfare expenses - HELD THAT:- When this issue is no longer res-integra having been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal right from A.Y. 1992-93 to A.Y. 2008-09 no distinct facts have been brought on record, moreover appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Tribunal allowing this issue in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 1996-97 has also been dismissed. Nature of expenses - broken period interest paid on purchase of securities - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that this issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in A.Y. 1991-92 to A.Y. 1994-95 and A.Y. 2003-04 to A.Y. 2004-05 [2021 (10) TMI 608 - ITAT MUMBAI] by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of American Express International Banking Corporation [2002 (9) TMI 96 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] by considering the decision rendered by case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. [1990 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] No distinguishing facts have been brought on record by the Ld. D.R., hence we find no scope to interfere into the findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground No.4 is also determined against the Revenue. Allowance of taxing of interest on securities on due basis - assessee bank has been following mercantile system of accounting and as such interest on securities is to be accounted for on accrual basis while arriving at the book profit - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2001-02 we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. Security as stock in trade and loss on revaluation as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal from A.Y. 1996-97 to A.Y. 2004-05 and order passed by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1996-97 and A.Y. 1997-98 has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court [2016 (8) TMI 1441 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in favour of the assessee.
|