Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s orders on various grounds. Dismisses appeals related to disallowances and deductions.

The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders on all grounds. The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, disallowance of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii), addition of interest charged under Section 234B, and deletion of addition on account of depreciation claimed on 'Held to Maturity' category investments were all decided in accordance with precedents set by the jurisdictional High Court and earlier Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
2. Disallowance of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).
3. Addition of interest charged under Section 234B.
4. Deletion of addition on account of depreciation claimed on 'Held to Maturity' (HTM) category investments.

Detailed Analysis

1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D
The first issue in the assessee’s appeal concerns the disallowance of Rs. 10,10,99,840/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. The Tribunal referred to a similar issue in the assessee’s own case, where the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court had ruled that the disallowance under Section 14A should be made under Rule 8D from the assessment year 2010-2011 onwards. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, which followed this precedent, and dismissed the assessee’s appeal on this ground.

2. Disallowance of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii)
The next common ground in both the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals pertains to the disallowance of a deduction of Rs. 10,79,80,515/- (later revised to Rs. 9,53,09,753/-) under Section 36(1)(viii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the deduction, stating that the assessee had not advanced any loans for long-term finance for development of housing, industrial or agricultural development, or infrastructure in India. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction for loans related to industrial or agricultural development and infrastructure, but upheld the disallowance for loans related to housing development, interpreting that construction/purchase of individual houses does not constitute housing development. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, confirming that the assessee is not entitled to a deduction for advances given for individual houses under Section 36(1)(viii).

3. Addition of interest charged under Section 234B
The assessee’s appeal also included a ground regarding the addition of interest charged under Section 234B. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s view, following the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005-2006, which held that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory. The Tribunal, following this precedent, dismissed the assessee’s appeal on this ground.

4. Deletion of addition on account of depreciation claimed on 'Held to Maturity' (HTM) category investments
The Revenue’s appeal addressed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,16,00,57,121/- on account of depreciation claimed on HTM category investments. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case, where it was held that securities classified as HTM and treated as stock-in-trade are subject to valuation at cost or market price, whichever is lower, and the resultant depreciation/appreciation is to be considered for taxation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, which followed this precedent, and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on this ground.

Conclusion
Both the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s orders on all grounds, following the precedents set by the jurisdictional High Court and earlier Tribunal decisions in the assessee’s own case. The detailed analysis confirms the application of relevant sections and rules, ensuring the decisions align with established legal interpretations and precedents.

---