Bank guarantee charges, notional income, and CSR spend: ITAT principles on disallowance and depreciation claims.

Bank guarantee commission paid to scheduled banks was treated as a banking service charge, not commission for TDS disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Notional interest on unrecovered advances was held not taxable as real income, and related interest additions on deposits were also rejected. Demurrage and wharfage charges were treated as compensatory business , while write-off of slow-moving stores and spares was accepted as a bona fide valuation exercise. Section 14A was held inapplicable where no exempt income arose. UPS qualified as a computer peripheral for higher depreciation, ad hoc repair and maintenance disallowances were unsustainable, and CSR expenditure was not hit by section 37(1) for the relevant year because Explanation 2 applies prospectively.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bank guarantee commission was liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether notional interest on advances to M/s Karsan and interest on deposits could be brought to tax on the facts of the case; (iii) whether demurrage and wharfage charges and write-off of slow moving stores and spares were allowable business expenses; (iv) whether disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was permissible in the absence of exempt income; (v) whether additional depreciation on UPS was allowable as computer peripheral; (vi) whether ad hoc disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses was justified; and (vii) whether CSR expenditure was hit by section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether bank guarantee commission was liable to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The payment was treated as a banking service charge rather than commission within the meaning of section 194H. The Notification No. 56/2012 and the settled view on bank guarantee charges supported the assessee's case, and the proviso inserted by Finance Act, 2012 also supported the absence of disallowance in the facts presented.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether notional interest on advances to M/s Karsan and interest on deposits could be brought to tax on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The interest claimed by the Revenue was not found to be real income, since the principal advance itself had not been recovered and the recovery remained uncertain. On the same footing, the addition on deposits was treated as consequential and dependent on the same notional accrual theory.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether demurrage and wharfage charges and write-off of slow moving stores and spares were allowable business expenses.

Analysis: Demurrage and wharfage were treated as compensatory charges and not penalty, and therefore not barred by the Explanation to section 37(1). The write-off of slow moving stores and spares was accepted as a bona fide business valuation exercise and not an arbitrary or unsupported claim.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was permissible in the absence of exempt income.

Analysis: The record showed that no exempt income was earned during the relevant year. In such circumstances, section 14A was held inapplicable, and the cited authorities supported the proposition that there must be actual exempt income for a disallowance.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee.

Issue (v): Whether additional depreciation on UPS was allowable as computer peripheral.

Analysis: UPS was treated as an integral part of the computer system and eligible for the higher rate of depreciation. The later statutory amendment did not defeat the claim in the relevant assessment year.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether ad hoc disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses was justified.

Analysis: The Assessing Officer made a percentage-based disallowance without a proper basis and without rejecting the supporting details furnished by the assessee. The addition was therefore found to be purely ad hoc and unsustainable.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee.

Issue (vii): Whether CSR expenditure was hit by section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The expenditure was incurred pursuant to a statutory CSR obligation under the Companies Act, 2013 and the corresponding rules. Explanation 2 to section 37(1) was held to be prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2015-16.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the substantive issues decided in its favour, while the Revenue's connected appeals failed, leaving the assessments modified only to the extent of the relief granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A disallowance under section 14A cannot be made where no exempt income is earned, bank guarantee charges paid to scheduled banks are not commission for TDS disallowance purposes, notional income that has not crystallized is not taxable as real income, and Explanation 2 to section 37(1) operates prospectively.

---