Section 14A disallowance and leave encashment treatment turn on stock-in-trade banking activity and payment-basis allowance.

For shares held by a bank as stock-in-trade, the commentary applies Maxopp Investments to note that the activity remains a business activity and that incidental dividend does not justify sustaining disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) on the facts stated. It also states that leave encashment is governed by section 43B(f) and is allowable only on actual payment, so the provision must be disallowed in the year of creation and allowed in the year of payment, with corresponding adjustment to the assessment and related interest or penalty consequences.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was sustainable in respect of shares held by a bank as stock-in-trade. (ii) Whether the provision for leave encashment was allowable in the year of provision or only on actual payment and whether the matter required modification of the assessment.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was sustainable in respect of shares held by a bank as stock-in-trade.

Analysis: The issue was considered in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in Maxopp Investments, which clarified that where shares are held as stock-in-trade by a bank, the activity remains a business activity. Dividend arising incidentally from such holdings may still attract section 14A, but the facts of a banking concern holding shares as stock-in-trade were treated as materially covered by that ruling. On that basis, the disallowance sustained under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was found unsustainable on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the provision for leave encashment was allowable in the year of provision or only on actual payment and whether the matter required modification of the assessment.

Analysis: Leave encashment was treated as allowable only on actual payment basis in view of section 43B(f). The matter was not finally rejected outright; instead, the assessment was directed to be aligned with the payment basis by disallowing the claim in the year of provision and allowing it in the year of payment. Consequential relief was also directed against levy of interest and penalty for the year of disallowance.

Conclusion: The claim was allowed for statistical purposes and the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for giving effect to the payment-basis treatment.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the disallowance under section 14A and obtained only consequential relief on leave encashment, while the revenue's penalty appeal failed because the penalty was unsustainable once the underlying disallowance issue was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a bank holds shares as stock-in-trade, dividend income arising incidentally from those holdings does not justify sustaining a disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) on the facts found, and leave encashment provision is governed by payment-based allowance under section 43B(f).

---