2015 (8) TMI 216 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, addressing Section 115JB, computerization expenditure, and debenture write-off

Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11 (4), Bangalore Versus The Vysya Bank Ltd., (Now ING Vysya Bank Ltd.) and M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12 (3), Bangalore

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, providing relief on multiple grounds including the applicability of Section ... Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) directed disallowance to be at 5% instead of 15% - Held that:- CIT(A) has only followed the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case wherein the Tribunal has held only remission could be possible which can be considered as prayed before the Settlement Commission on the very issue of rendering additional income being exempt income for taxation. The Hon’ble Settlement Commission has settled the expenditure to be considered for earning the said income at 5% thereof which we are inclined to uphold to be considered as against estimated by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) at 15%. The disallowance of expenses therefore is directed to be at 5% instead of 15% for earning the said income be considered - Decided against revenue. Disallowance being ‘write off of non-convertible debentures’ on the ground that there is no actual write off - Held that:- he issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (1999 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court ) and also by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case. In view of the same, we remand this issue to the file of the AO for re-consideration - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of the expenditure on Vysyamulya Project (computerization of branches) on the ground that the same is capital expenditure - Held that:- Similar issue had arisen in the case of IBM India Ltd. [2013 (10) TMI 1225 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein held that when the software is fitted to a computer system to work, it enhances the efficiency of the operation. It is an aid in manufacturing process rather than the tool itself. Though certain application is an enduring benefit, it does not result into acquisition of any capital asset. It merely enhances the productivity or efficiency and therefore, it has to be treated as revenue expenditure.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of the claim of ₹ 1 lakh u/s 36(1)(viia) - Held that:- The actual provision made in the books by the Assessee on account of PBDD (irrespective of whether it is rural or non- rural) has to be seen. To the extent PBDD is so created, then subject to the permissible upper limits referred to above, the deduction has to be allowed to the Assessee. The question of bifurcating the PBDD as one relating to rural advances and other advances (Non-rural advances) does not arise for consideration. Since the facts of the case are similar for the relevant assessment year also, we direct the AO to allow deduction subject to the permissible limits referred to u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of amortization of cost over face value of investment held to maturity stating that the same is not revenue expenditure in terms of sec.37(1) - Held that:- Tribunal, in the case of Sir M.Visveswaraya Co-op. Bank Ltd. (2012 (9) TMI 774 - ITAT, BANGALORE) has considered this issue at length to held that the assessee therein is entitled to claim deduction of the amortization of the premium on Government securities. Since facts of the case before us are also similar, we are inclined to follow the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal and we direct the AO to allow the deduction. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of the write off of non-convertible debentures, depreciation on investment, depreciation on leased assets and provision for NPA while arriving at the book profits /s 115JB - MAT provisions - Held that:- We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that the provisions of sec.115JB are not applicable to a banking company. See M/s. Canara Bank Versus Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Bangalore [2012 (11) TMI 139 - ITAT BANGALORE]Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Write-off of non-convertible debentures.3. Expenditure on computerization of branches.4. Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act.5. Amortization of cost over face value of investment held to maturity.6. Applicability of Section 115JB to a banking company.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 1,43,69,418/- under Section 14A, claiming the assessee did not incur any expenses to earn exempt income. The AO estimated 15% of the expenses as incurred for earning exempt income. The CIT(A) reduced this to 5%, following an earlier Tribunal decision in the assessee's case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere.2. Write-off of Non-Convertible Debentures:The AO disallowed the assessee's claim of Rs. 7,48,41,688/- for non-convertible debentures, stating there was no actual write-off. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The Tribunal, however, found the issue in favor of the assessee, referencing the Supreme Court decision in UCO Bank and remanded the issue back to the AO for reconsideration.3. Expenditure on Computerization of Branches:The AO categorized Rs. 23,05,49,466/- spent on the Vysyamulya Project (computerization of branches) as capital expenditure. The Tribunal, referencing the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. IBM India Ltd., held that such expenditure should be considered revenue in nature, thus allowing the assessee's claim.4. Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act:The AO disallowed the assessee's claim of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 36(1)(viia). The Tribunal, following its own decision in the assessee's case for earlier years, directed the AO to allow the deduction subject to permissible limits, stating that bifurcating PBDD into rural and non-rural advances was unnecessary.5. Amortization of Cost over Face Value of Investment Held to Maturity:The AO disallowed Rs. 3,19,37,457/- for amortization of cost over face value of investments held to maturity, treating it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal, following its decision in Sir M. Visveswaraya Co-op. Bank Ltd., held that the amortization of the premium on Government securities is deductible, thus allowing the assessee's claim.6. Applicability of Section 115JB to a Banking Company:The assessee contended that Section 115JB does not apply to banking companies. The Tribunal, referencing decisions in Canara Bank, Dena Bank, and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., agreed and held that Section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the related grounds.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, providing relief on multiple grounds including the applicability of Section 115JB, the nature of expenditure on computerization, and the treatment of amortization costs. The Tribunal remanded the issue of write-off of non-convertible debentures back to the AO for reconsideration.