Tribunal rulings on income tax deductions: Bad debts, securities depreciation, derivatives losses, and reserves importance.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee-bank's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding disallowances under various sections of the Income-tax Act, including bad debts, depreciation on securities, mark to market losses on derivatives, and sundry assets written off. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of creating requisite reserves in the books for claiming deductions and ruled in favor of the assessee on several grounds, citing relevant case law and precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Disallowance of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act.
4. Depreciation on HTM (Held to Maturity) securities.
5. Mark to market loss on derivatives.
6. Sundry assets written off.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia):

The assessee-bank claimed a deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for a provision for bad and doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 171,14,39,327/-. The AO disallowed this amount on the grounds that the requisite reserve was not created in the books of account. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, referencing the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT, which mandates that the deduction should be limited to the actual provision created in the books. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the creation of the requisite reserve in the books is a condition precedent for claiming the deduction. Therefore, the assessee-bank's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

2. Disallowance of Bad Debts under Section 36(1)(vii):

The AO disallowed the assessee-bank's claim for bad debts of Rs. 55,62,08,835/- on the grounds of overlapping with Section 36(1)(viia). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, citing that the amounts were not actually written off in the books. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, held that debiting the P&L account and reducing the provision from sundry debtors in the balance sheet amounts to a write-off. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify if the provision for bad debts was debited to the P&L account and reduced from the sundry debtors in the balance sheet.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A:

The AO disallowed Rs. 2,54,00,000/- under Section 14A, which the CIT(A) upheld. The assessee-bank argued that it had already disallowed Rs. 5,20,530/- suo motu and that the AO had not provided any rationale for the additional disallowance. The Tribunal, citing its decision in Canara Bank's case, held that the AO must first be dissatisfied with the assessee's claim before applying Rule 8D. As the AO did not provide such a finding, the Tribunal ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted and allowed the assessee-bank's appeal on this ground.

4. Depreciation on HTM Securities:

The AO disallowed depreciation on HTM securities amounting to Rs. 151,48,15,234/-, treating the loss as capital in nature. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2003-04, which held that HTM securities form part of the stock-in-trade. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing its ruling in Canara Bank's case that investments held by a banking concern are part of the business of banking and should be treated as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

5. Mark to Market Loss on Derivatives:

The AO disallowed a mark to market loss on derivatives amounting to Rs. 111,89,71,243/-, treating it as capital in nature. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, reasoning that derivatives are part of the stock-in-trade for a banking company. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the principle that stock-in-trade should be valued at cost or market price, whichever is lower, and any resultant loss should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Edelweiss Capital Ltd. vs. ITO to support this view, thus dismissing the revenue's appeal on this ground.

6. Sundry Assets Written Off:

The AO disallowed sundry assets written off amounting to Rs. 16,04,126/-, treating it as bad debt. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, noting that these were service charges not recovered and not bad debts in the traditional sense. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the conditions of Section 36(1)(vii) were not applicable as these were service charges and not loans. Therefore, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee-bank's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open court on 22nd July 2016.

---