Bank wins multiple tax deductions including special reserves under section 36(1)(viii) and bad debt provisions

The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee bank on multiple tax issues. The tribunal allowed deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) for special reserves, following consistent precedent that banks are covered under financial corporations. For section 14A disallowance, the matter was restored to AO to consider Supreme Court judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) for bad debt provisions was partly allowed based on book provisions. Amortization of lease premium was disallowed following earlier tribunal decisions. Broken period interest deduction was restored to AO for fresh consideration per Bombay HC precedent. Loss from Lehman Brothers payment was allowed as business expenditure, not speculative loss.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Part disallowance of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D.
3. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act for provisions of bad and doubtful debts.
4. Disallowance of amortization of lease premium.
5. Inclusion of profits of foreign branches in the income of the assessee.
6. Disallowance of broken period interest paid.
7. Disallowance of loss arising out of payment made to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.
8. Applicability of the provisions of section 115JB of the Act to the assessee.
9. Allowing credit for TDS of foreign branches.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Part Disallowance of Deduction Claimed under Section 36(1)(viii):
The assessee, a Public Sector Banking company, claimed a deduction of Rs. 200 crore under section 36(1)(viii) for special reserve created for income from eligible business. The Assessing Officer (AO) restricted this to Rs. 157.33 crore, disallowing Rs. 42.67 crore, based on incorrect allocation of operational expenses by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this disallowance. However, the Tribunal noted that similar issues in previous years (2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10) were decided in favor of the assessee, recognizing banks under the inclusive definition of "financial Corporations" in section 36(1)(viii). Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim, deleting the addition.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:
The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 59.76 crore under section 14A read with rule 8D, for exempt income earned by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this, referencing previous years' decisions. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v/s CIT clarified that disallowance under section 14A applies even if shares are held as stock-in-trade. However, considering the specific context of banking companies, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's observations, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

3. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia):
The AO reduced the assessee's claimed deduction of Rs. 1376.51 crore to Rs. 1365.95 crore, disallowing Rs. 10.56 crore, as the claimed amount exceeded the provision made in the books. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this based on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in State Bank of Patiala. The Tribunal, referencing the Ahmedabad Bench's decision in Sarvodaya Sahakar Bank Ltd., held that the deduction allowable should be based on provisions made in the books, whether in the current or preceding years. The issue was restored to the AO for recomputation, partly allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

4. Disallowance of Amortization of Lease Premium:
The AO disallowed Rs. 2.61 crore claimed as amortization of lease premium, treating it as capital expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this, following previous years' decisions. The Tribunal noted that this recurring issue had been consistently decided against the assessee in earlier years (2003-04, 2004-05), and upheld the disallowance, dismissing the ground.

5. Inclusion of Profits of Foreign Branches:
The AO included Rs. 551.23 crore of foreign branch profits in the assessee's income, which the assessee claimed was exempt under DTAA provisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the inclusion. The Tribunal, referencing its decisions in previous years (2004-05, 2009-10), and supported by the Bombay High Court, held that profits of foreign branches are not taxable in India if taxed abroad under DTAA. The Tribunal deleted the addition, allowing the ground.

6. Disallowance of Broken Period Interest Paid:
The AO disallowed Rs. 83.55 crore claimed as broken period interest, arguing it was not offered on an accrual basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this. The Tribunal noted that the Jurisdictional High Court in State Bank of India and American Express International Banking Corporation had allowed such claims. The issue was restored to the AO for reconsideration in light of these decisions, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

7. Disallowance of Loss Arising Out of Payment to Lehman Brothers:
The AO treated the Rs. 211.08 crore paid to Lehman Brothers as speculative loss under section 73. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this. The Tribunal noted that the payment was related to hedging agreements, not speculative transactions, and was allowable as business expenditure. The Tribunal deleted the addition, allowing the ground.

8. Applicability of Section 115JB to Banking Companies:
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that section 115JB does not apply to banking companies, based on various judicial precedents. The Tribunal, agreeing with the parties, dismissed the Revenue's ground.

9. Allowing Credit for TDS of Foreign Branches:
The AO did not allow credit for TDS on foreign dividend income. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the AO to decide the issue as per sections 199 and 91. The Tribunal found no reason for the Department's grievance with this direction and dismissed the ground.

Summary:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with several issues restored to the AO for reconsideration, while the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal's decisions were largely based on consistency with previous years' rulings and relevant judicial precedents.

---