Capital receipt, book-based bad debt deduction, and real income principle governed tax treatment of grant and NPA interest.

A government grant converted from loan and interest-free deposit was held to be a capital receipt because its purpose was public welfare and restoration of normal banking operations, so it was not taxable. Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) was restricted to the provision for bad and doubtful debts actually made in the books, and the excess claim failed. Interest on sticky advances and NPAs was not taxable on accrual basis for a co-operative bank, as RBI prudential norms and the real income principle showed no true accrual where recovery was doubtful, so the addition was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government grant of Rs. 110 crores, converted from loan and interest-free deposit, was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt; (ii) Whether deduction under section 36(1)(viia) was allowable beyond the amount of provision actually created in the books; (iii) Whether interest on sticky advances / NPAs was taxable on accrual basis in the hands of a co-operative bank not covered by section 43D.

Issue (i): Whether the Government grant of Rs. 110 crores, converted from loan and interest-free deposit, was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.

Analysis: The character of a subsidy or grant depends on its purpose, not on its form or the mechanism by which it is disbursed. The financial assistance was given to protect farmers and depositors and to restore the bank's normal functioning after regulatory restrictions, and the receipt was not made in the course of trade. The conversion of the earlier loan and deposit into a grant was thus a means of achieving the public welfare object.

Conclusion: The grant was a capital receipt and was not taxable.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 36(1)(viia) was allowable beyond the amount of provision actually created in the books.

Analysis: The statutory language permits deduction only in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts actually made. The provision created in the accounts was lower than the amount claimed, and the lower authorities were bound by the requirement that the deduction cannot exceed the provision recorded in the books.

Conclusion: The deduction was rightly restricted to the amount of provision actually made, and the assessee failed on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether interest on sticky advances / NPAs was taxable on accrual basis in the hands of a co-operative bank not covered by section 43D.

Analysis: Although section 43D did not apply, the governing question remained whether income had really accrued. Applying the RBI prudential norms and the real income principle, interest on NPAs could not be treated as having accrued where recovery itself had become doubtful. In the absence of jurisdictional precedent, the view favourable to the assessee was adopted.

Conclusion: The interest on NPAs was not taxable on accrual basis, and the deletion of the addition was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the capital-receipt issue and the NPA-interest issue, but failed on the section 36(1)(viia) claim, resulting in a partial allowance of the assessee's appeal and dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

---