2020 (4) TMI 373 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules in favor of assessee on tax law issues.

The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all substantial questions of law. The interpretation of provisions of section 14A(1) of the Income Tax Act ... Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Assessing Authority while invoking the provisions of Rule 14(A) (1) read with Rule 8(D) of the Income Tax Act has not disclosed any basis for expenditure in relation to exempt income while invoking the aforesaid provision. Therefore, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in negative and in favour of the assessee. Excess claim of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of assessee relying on M/S. SYNDICATE BANK [2020 (2) TMI 1020 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Depreciation on valuation of investment portfolio - Whether allowable by treating the investments held by the assessee bank as stock-in-trade once the RBI Master Circular read with CBDT Circular No.665 came into force - HELD THAT:- Question of law is answered by a Bench of this Court in M/S. ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED [2020 (1) TMI 1116 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of provisions of section 14A(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding expenditure relating to earning exempt income.2. Excess claim of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) exceeding the credit balance of the provision under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act.3. Allowability of depreciation on the valuation of investment portfolio by treating investments as stock-in-trade post RBI Master Circular and CBDT Circular.Analysis:Issue 1:The first substantial question of law pertains to the interpretation of provisions of section 14A(1) of the Income Tax Act concerning the addition representing expenditure relating to earning exempt income. The Court noted that the Assessing Authority did not provide any basis for the expenditure in relation to exempt income while invoking the provisions of Rule 14(A) (1) read with Rule 8(D) of the Act. Consequently, the Court answered this substantial question of law in the negative and in favor of the assessee, leading to the disposal of the appeal.Issue 2:Regarding the second substantial question of law concerning the excess claim of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) exceeding the credit balance of the provision under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the Court referenced a judgment passed in ITA No.256/2011 by a Division Bench of the Court. The Court noted that this question was already addressed in the mentioned judgment, and as such, it was answered in favor of the assessee. This led to the resolution of this issue in favor of the assessee as well.Issue 3:The third substantial question of law involved the allowability of depreciation on the valuation of the investment portfolio by treating investments as stock-in-trade post the RBI Master Circular and CBDT Circular. The Court referred to a judgment in ITA No.18/2014 where this issue was already addressed. The Court found that the depreciation on the valuation of the investment portfolio is allowable by treating the investments held by the assessee bank as stock-in-trade post the mentioned circulars. Consequently, this substantial question of law was resolved in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with each substantial question of law being addressed and answered in favor of the assessee based on the interpretations of the relevant provisions and previous judgments by the Court.