Appeals partly allowed for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15: Assessee and Revenue both succeed on some grounds.

The Tribunal allowed some grounds in favor of the assessee, remanded others for fresh examination, and dismissed a few based on existing precedents. The appeals by both the assessee and Revenue for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of bad debts written off.
2. Disallowance of claim of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia).
3. Disallowance of depreciation on AFS & HFT category of investments.
4. Disallowance of depreciation on HTM category of investments.
5. Appreciation on investments not offered to tax.
6. Unrealised gain on revaluation of forward contracts.
7. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets.
8. Disallowance u/s 14A.
9. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) – payment made to NPCI.
10. Amortisation of premium in respect of HTM category of investments.
11. Profit on sale of shares of CARE Ltd.
12. Depreciation on ATM.
13. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).
14. Interest on Income Tax Refund.
15. Applicability of Sec. 115JB to banking companies.
16. Depreciation on leased assets to Kedia Group of companies.
17. Disallowance of loss from investment in ISARC Trust.
18. Disallowance of penalty paid to RBI under FEMA guidelines.
19. Disallowance of claim u/s 80G.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Bad Debts Written Off:
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank is eligible to claim and be allowed write off of the bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT and the Tribunal's own previous rulings in the assessee's case.

2. Disallowance of Claim of Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts u/s 36(1)(viia):
The Tribunal found that the computation of the Aggregate Average Advances (AAA) by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. It ruled in favor of the assessee, following the Tribunal’s previous decisions in Canara Bank Vs. JCIT and Vijaya Bank.

3. Disallowance of Depreciation on AFS & HFT Category of Investments:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on investments, following the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court’s decision in Karnataka Bank Vs. ACIT and the Tribunal’s previous rulings in the assessee's own case.

4. Disallowance of Depreciation on HTM Category of Investments:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that investments should be valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower, for income tax purposes. The book results were ignored, and the notional appreciation in the value of investments was not taxed.

5. Appreciation on Investments Not Offered to Tax:
The Tribunal held that the notional appreciation in the value of investments, as per books, is not to be taxed and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

6. Unrealised Gain on Revaluation of Forward Contracts:
The Tribunal ruled that unrealized gains on revaluation of foreign exchange contracts are not exigible to tax, following its own previous decision in the assessee's case.

7. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets:
The Tribunal upheld the decision to allow depreciation on leased assets, following the precedent set in the assessee’s own case in previous years.

8. Disallowance u/s 14A:
The Tribunal ruled that no disallowance can be made under Section 14A of the Act over and above the amount disallowed suo moto by the assessee, following its previous decisions in the assessee's case and Vijaya Bank.

9. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) – Payment Made to NPCI:
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by NPCI are not technical services and, therefore, not covered by the provisions of Sec. 194J of the Act, following the Hon'ble Apex Court’s decision in Kotak Securities Ltd.

10. Amortisation of Premium in Respect of HTM Category of Investments:
Since the issue of depreciation on investments was decided in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to withdraw the amortization of premium allowed.

11. Profit on Sale of Shares of CARE Ltd.:
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, verification, and adjudication to determine whether the shares were held as investments or stock-in-trade.

12. Depreciation on ATM:
The Tribunal dismissed the ground raised by the assessee, following the decision in State Bank of Mysore, which held that ATMs are not computers and hence depreciation thereon is to be allowed at 15%.

13. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia):
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification of the assessee's claims.

14. Interest on Income Tax Refund:
The Tribunal dismissed the ground raised by the assessee, following the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Benches in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. ACIT.

15. Applicability of Sec. 115JB to Banking Companies:
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh examination and adjudication on the applicability of the provisions of Sec. 115JB post amendment by Finance Act, 2012.

16. Depreciation on Leased Assets to Kedia Group of Companies:
The Tribunal dismissed the ground raised by Revenue, following the decision in the assessee’s own case for previous years.

17. Disallowance of Loss from Investment in ISARC Trust:
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for examination, verification, and adjudication after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

18. Disallowance of Penalty Paid to RBI Under FEMA Guidelines:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for examination and adjudication on merits.

19. Disallowance of Claim u/s 80G:
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for examination and adjudication on merits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed some grounds in favor of the assessee, remanded others for fresh examination, and dismissed a few based on existing precedents. The appeals by both the assessee and Revenue for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were partly allowed.

---