2014 (9) TMI 1057 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms Tribunal decisions on tax issues including Broken Period Interest, staff fraud provision, and Non-Performing Assets

The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI, Hyderabad Versus M/s. Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decisions on various issues, including the allowability of Broken Period Interest ... Broken Period interest - Held that:- Tribunal followed the judgment of this Court in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1984 (7) TMI 66 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court) and held that it is an allowable deduction. Deduction towards staff fraud - Held that:- Tribunal is correct in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the expenditure claimed on the provision for staff frauds as an allowable business expenditure. Issues:1. Allowability of Broken Period Interest as expenditure2. Treatment of investments 'Held To Maturity' as stock in trade and deletion of addition on account of Amortization of Government Securities3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed on the provision for staff frauds4. Accrual of interest income on Non-Performing Assets despite specific provisions in Section 43D of the Income Tax Act, 1961Analysis:1. The first issue pertains to the allowability of Broken Period Interest as expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing Broken Period interest as expenditure, citing the judgment of the State Bank of Hyderabad case. The Revenue appealed against this decision, questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's ruling. However, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as the Tribunal's reasoning was based on precedents that had not been challenged or overturned. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal on this issue.2. The second issue involves the treatment of investments 'Held To Maturity' (HTM) as stock in trade and the deletion of the addition on account of Amortization of Government Securities. The Revenue did not press this issue during the appeal, indicating a concession on their part. As a result, the High Court did not delve into this matter further, as it was not actively pursued by the Revenue.3. Moving on to the third issue, which concerns the disallowance of expenditure claimed on the provision for staff frauds. The Tribunal had deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, following a decision of the Amritsar Bench, which itself relied on a judgment of the Gujarat High Court. Since there was no challenge to these decisions, the High Court saw no grounds for intervention and upheld the Tribunal's ruling on this issue.4. The final issue revolves around the accrual of interest income on Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) despite specific provisions in Section 43D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision that interest income did not accrue to the assessee on NPAs during the year. The Revenue did not challenge this aspect during the appeal, and as there were no substantial questions of law raised, the High Court dismissed the appeal on this issue as well.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decisions on the various issues raised, as there were no substantial legal questions warranting intervention.