Tribunal Decision: Amortization Appeal Partially Allowed, Section 115JB Inapplicable to Banks

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee. The case concerning the amortization of premium paid for securities was remanded to the AO for further assessment. The Tribunal upheld the non-applicability of Section 115JB to banking companies and the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A. Additionally, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s decision on income from house property and eliminated the disallowance under Section 36(1)(viii).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Amortization of premium paid for purchase of securities.
2. Applicability of Section 115JB to Banking Companies.
3. Disallowance under Section 14A.
4. Determination of income from house property.
5. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(viii).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Amortization of Premium Paid for Purchase of Securities:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 61.26 crores made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of amortization of premium paid for purchase of securities. The assessee, a banking company, had deducted this amount from interest earned as per RBI guidelines. The AO disallowed the claim, stating there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to allow such amortization. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by following the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The Tribunal observed that the nature and character of the securities (whether held as stock-in-trade or investment) were vital for deciding this issue. The case was remanded back to the AO for determining the nature and character of the relevant securities and deciding the matter afresh.

2. Applicability of Section 115JB to Banking Companies:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of Section 115JB were not applicable to banking companies. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, citing various decisions, including the Coordinate Bench's decision in the case of UCO Bank, which held that Section 115JB is not applicable to banking companies for the assessment year in question. The amendment making Section 115JB applicable to banking companies was prospective from assessment year 2013-14.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The AO disallowed Rs. 363.13 crores under Section 14A by applying Rule 8D. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, following the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, where it was held that the AO could not invoke Rule 8D without recording satisfaction as envisaged in Section 14A(2). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that no proper satisfaction was recorded by the AO about the disallowance offered by the assessee being incorrect.

4. Determination of Income from House Property:
The AO determined the annual value of the assessee's properties by increasing the estimation from the previous year by 5%. The CIT(A) directed the AO to determine the income from house properties based on municipal valuation. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to determine the annual value by adopting the municipal valuation after adding 1/9th thereto, in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satya Company Limited.

5. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(viii):
The AO restricted the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) by apportioning operating expenses in the ratio of interest earned on long-term lending to total interest income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal, however, held that the basis adopted by the assessee for apportionment of operating expenses (considering advances and deposits) was more fair and reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the same basis was consistently followed and accepted by the Revenue in earlier years. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue. The case regarding the amortization of premium paid for purchase of securities was remanded back to the AO for fresh determination. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the non-applicability of Section 115JB to banking companies and the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order on income from house property and deleted the disallowance under Section 36(1)(viii).

---