Tribunal decision: Assessee's appeals partly allowed, Revenue's dismissed. Key outcomes on disallowances, profit, and depreciation.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15, while dismissing the Revenue's appeals for the same years. Key outcomes include the deletion of disallowances under Section 14A and Sections 41(1) and 28(iv), the allowance of profit on the sale of investments, and the disallowance of excess depreciation on ATMs. The Tribunal upheld decisions based on precedents and lack of verification by the Assessing Officer in various instances.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A.
2. Bad debts written off.
3. Interest on securities disallowed.
4. Profit on sale of investments.
5. Loss on shifting of securities.
6. Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia).
7. Disallowance under Sections 41(1) and 28(iv).
8. Claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).
9. Excess depreciation on ATMs.
10. Interest on VIP deposits disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance of Rs. 2,82,57,685 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, relying on the Tribunal's decision in Karur Vysya Bank vs. JCIT, which held that investments by banking companies are business assets and thus, disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the AO did not provide reasons to reject the assessee's claim that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income.

2. Bad Debts Written Off:
The AO disallowed Rs. 51,44,46,907 claimed as bad debts written off for non-rural branches. The CIT(A) restricted the allowance to the actual provision created of Rs. 66,00,00,000, debited to the profit and loss account. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO to verify the amount of write-off debited to provisions for bad and doubtful debts and reduced from the advance account in the balance sheet.

3. Interest on Securities Disallowed:
The AO added Rs. 25,21,72,886 as interest accrued on government securities. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that interest on government securities accrues only on the due date. The Tribunal upheld this view.

4. Profit on Sale of Investments:
The AO added Rs. 7,25,09,632 as profit on the sale of investments. The CIT(A) allowed this as an expenditure, following the Tribunal's decision in Karur Vysya Bank. The Tribunal upheld this decision.

5. Loss on Shifting of Securities:
The AO disallowed Rs. 8,85,34,138 claimed as a loss on shifting securities from AFS to HTM categories. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, considering it a notional loss. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim, citing that investments held by banking companies are treated as stock-in-trade and thus, the fall in value should be allowed as a deduction.

6. Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia):
The AO disallowed Rs. 64,64,78,669 claimed under Section 36(1)(viia). The CIT(A) did not specifically address this issue. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO to verify the provision created and allow the deduction accordingly.

7. Disallowance under Sections 41(1) and 28(iv):
The AO added Rs. 47,58,883 and Rs. 47,05,085 as unclaimed money, stale drafts, and cheques. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, following the Tribunal's decision in Karur Vysya Bank. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that such amounts cannot be taxed as cessation of trading liability under Section 41(1).

8. Claim of Deduction under Section 36(1)(viii):
The AO disallowed Rs. 1,70,94,716, claiming that advances were made to ineligible activities. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that the AO did not verify the purpose of the loans. The Tribunal upheld this decision.

9. Excess Depreciation on ATMs:
The AO disallowed excess depreciation claimed on ATMs. The CIT(A) allowed higher depreciation, treating ATMs as computers, based on the Tribunal's decision in the Chandigarh Bench. The Tribunal upheld this view.

10. Interest on VIP Deposits Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia):
The AO disallowed Rs. 5,49,77,592 as interest on VIP deposits due to non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the obligation to deduct TDS on such deposits arose only from the assessment year 2016-17. The Tribunal upheld this decision.

Summary of Results:
- Appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
- Appeals of the Revenue for assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15 are dismissed.

---