Tax treatment of sticky advances, investment premium amortisation, and statutory co-operative contribution turned on applicable law and accounting rules.

Interest on sticky or doubtful advances credited to a suspense account remained taxable under the CBDT circular regime and the Income-tax Act, 1961, because RBI income-recognition norms could not override tax computation provisions; the addition was therefore sustained. Amortisation of premium on investment securities was not allowable, as the premium formed part of acquisition cost and no provision permitted annual deduction merely because of RBI accounting treatment; the disallowance was sustained. Contribution to Zila Sahkari Sangh was allowable as a statutory payment under the applicable co-operative societies law; the deduction was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest on sticky or doubtful advances, though not credited to the profit and loss account and kept in a suspense account, was taxable for assessment year 2007-08; (ii) whether amortisation of premium paid on acquisition of investment securities was allowable as deduction; (iii) whether contribution to Zila Sahkari Sangh was allowable as a statutory deduction.

Issue (i): Whether interest on sticky or doubtful advances, though not credited to the profit and loss account and kept in a suspense account, was taxable for assessment year 2007-08.

Analysis: The applicable CBDT circulars and the law governing banking income recognition were considered. For assessment years from 1979-80 onwards, interest on doubtful debts credited to a suspense account is taxable for the first three years, and thereafter only actual recovery is taxable. RBI guidelines on income recognition do not override the computation provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The addition on account of interest on sticky advances was upheld, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether amortisation of premium paid on acquisition of investment securities was allowable as deduction.

Analysis: The securities were held as investment and not as stock-in-trade. The premium paid formed part of the cost of acquisition, and there was no provision in the Income-tax Act, 1961 permitting deduction of a portion of that cost by way of annual amortisation merely because of RBI accounting treatment.

Conclusion: The disallowance of amortisation was upheld, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether contribution to Zila Sahkari Sangh was allowable as a statutory deduction.

Analysis: The payment was found to be a statutory payment required under the applicable co-operative societies law. The provision invoked by the revenue was held to be inapplicable to the facts of the case, and the statutory nature of the payment justified allowance of the claim.

Conclusion: The deduction was directed to be allowed, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with relief granted on the statutory contribution claim while the additions relating to sticky advance interest and amortisation of investment premium were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For banking entities, taxability of interest on doubtful advances is governed by the CBDT circular regime and the Income-tax Act, 1961, and RBI income-recognition norms cannot override tax computation; statutory co-operative payments are allowable when mandated by the governing law.

---