2021 (10) TMI 608 - AT - Income Tax

Partial Appeals Success Restoring Issues for Fresh Adjudication

The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues being restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The decisions were largely ... Addition on account of deferred payment guarantee commission - HELD THAT:- Both the parties mutually agreed that this issue is already covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y₹ 2001-02 and 2002-03 [2021 (7) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI] identical issue raised in this ground by the assessee is now settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decisions of the Tribunal rendered in assessee's own case in as 2000-01, 1984-85, 1996-97, and 1999-2000. Consistent with the view taken therein, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) by allowing the ground raised by the assessee - assessee also brought to our notice that the Assessing Officer has given effect to the order of the Tribunal and has allowed the deduction for deferred payment guarantee commission for the assessment year 1984-85 to 1989-90 and 1996-97. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Disallowance of depreciation on securities - HELD THAT:- Ad hoc deduction could be allowed against the amount receivable on redemption of securities which had matured and become due for payment before the close of the accounting year. This ground therefore fails. Disallowance of payment made in respect of scientific research - HELD THAT:- Both the parties mutually agreed that this issue is already covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y₹ 2001-02 and 2002-03 [2021 (7) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI]disallowance on account payments for scientific research is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules - HELD THAT:- Computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D which was introduced from 24/03/2008 could be made applicable only from A.Y.2008-09 and hence, the same cannot be applied for earlier years prior to A.Y.2008-09. The ld. AR fairly submitted that in order to maintain consistent stand, this Tribunal in earlier years in assessee’s own case had disallowed 1% of exempt income u/s.14A of the Act as expenses attributable for earning the exempt income. DR fairly agreed that the said disallowance to be made. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to disallow only 1% of exempt income u/s.14A of the Act which would be in line with disallowance made in earlier years. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee are partly allowed Reduction in the claim of deduction made u/s.80M - HELD THAT:- We also find that this issue apparently had arose pursuant to the order passed by the ld. Administrative Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act wherein deduction u/s.80M of the Act was sought to be reduced. We find that assessee had preferred an appeal against the said order of the Administrative Commissioner u/s.263 of the Act before this Tribunal. This Tribunal had vide its order had set aside the order to the extent of restriction of claim of deduction of 80M of the order. Hence, the entire reduction u/s.80M of the Act which was made by the ld. AO pursuant to 263 proceedings becomes infructuous. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets - HELD THAT:- Both the parties mutually agreed that this issue is already covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y₹ 2001-02 and 2002-03 [2021 (7) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI] Disallowance of broken period interest - HELD THAT:- During the course of hearing, both the leaned Counsels for the parties agreed that the identical issue raised in this ground by the assessee is now settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decisions of the Tribunal rendered in assessee's own case in assessment years [2021 (7) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI] for A.Y 2001-02 and 2002-03. Write off of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act in respect of non-rural advances - HELD THAT:- We find that both the parties mutually agreed that this issue has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2008-09 [2020 (2) TMI 1350 - ITAT MUMBAI] assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being the amount of bad debts written off (other than in respect of rural advances). This issue of assessee appeal is allowed. Claim of deduction for entire provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- Both the parties mutually agreed that this issue is already covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y 2001-02 and 2002-03 [2021 (7) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI] against assessee. Interest u/s.234C of the Act should be chargeable only on the returned income and not on the assessed income. Levy of interest u/s.234D - This issue is already covered against the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation [2012 (9) TMI 517 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Taxing the income earned from foreign branches in India - HELD THAT:- As this issue has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y 2001-02 and 2002-03 [2021 (7) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI]restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and directed him to decide the controversy afresh by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with !aw by following similar guidelines as given by the Tribunal in the aforesaid misc. application. Consistent with the view as aforesaid, we set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar direction. Write off of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) - HELD THAT:- All the facts necessary for adjudication of the additional ground is already on record and hence the same are hereby admitted AR before us stated that this deduction has been claimed by the assessee in respect of write off of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank [2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT]. We find that similar issue had arose in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2001-02 and 2002-03 wherein this Tribunal vide its order dated 12/07/2021 had restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO. Recovery of bad debts written off which according to the assessee should not be liable to tax in terms of Section 41(4) - HELD THAT:- All the facts necessary for adjudication of the additional ground is already on record and hence the same are hereby admitted. We find that this issue already was the subject matter of adjudication by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Yrs 2001-02 and 2002-03 [2021 (7) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI] restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and directed him to decide the controversy afresh by Giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law by following similar guidelines as given by the Tribunal in the aforesaid misc. application. Consistent with the view as aforesaid, we set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar. Disallowance of staff welfare expenses incurred by the assessee for reservation of seats in the schools for the children of the bank officers - HELD THAT:- Both the parties mutually agreed that this issue is already covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y₹ 2001-02 and 2002-03 [2021 (7) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI] we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and decline to interfere in the order as such. While concluding, we place on record that the appeal filed by the Revenue in assessee's own case before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court for the assessment year 1996-97, the said appeal was also dismissed - Thus, ground no.1, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Deferred Payment Guarantee Commission2. Disallowance of Depreciation on Securities3. Disallowance of Payment for Scientific Research4. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 14A5. Reduction in Deduction under Section 80M6. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets7. Disallowance of Broken Period Interest8. Write-off of Bad Debts under Section 36(1)(vii)9. Claim of Deduction for Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts under Section 36(1)(viia)10. Chargeability of Interest under Section 234C11. Levy of Interest under Section 234D12. Taxation of Income from Foreign Branches13. Disallowance of Staff Welfare Expenses14. Loss on Revaluation of Investments / Amortization of Premium on Securities15. Taxability of Interest on Securities16. Depreciation of Securities Held under 'Available For Sale' (AFS) and 'Held For Trading' (HFT) Categories17. Additional Grounds on Write-off of Bad Debts and Recovery of Bad Debts under Section 41(4)Detailed Analysis:1. Deferred Payment Guarantee Commission:The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue of deferred payment guarantee commission was previously settled in favor of the assessee in earlier assessment years (A.Y. 2001-02 and 2002-03). Respectfully following the precedent, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.2. Disallowance of Depreciation on Securities:The Tribunal noted that this issue was consistently decided against the assessee in prior years (A.Y. 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01). Following the established precedent, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.3. Disallowance of Payment for Scientific Research:The Tribunal found that this issue had been consistently decided against the assessee in earlier years (A.Y. 2000-01, 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000). Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.4. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 14A:The Tribunal held that the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D, introduced from 24/03/2008, could not be applied retroactively to earlier years. It directed the AO to disallow only 1% of exempt income under Section 14A, consistent with earlier years' decisions.5. Reduction in Deduction under Section 80M:The Tribunal determined that the law required only actual expenditure to be considered for deduction under Section 80M, not estimated expenses. The reduction made pursuant to Section 263 proceedings was deemed infructuous, and the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.6. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets:The Tribunal noted that this issue was consistently decided against the assessee in earlier years (A.Y. 2000-01, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000). Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.7. Disallowance of Broken Period Interest:The Tribunal found that this issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years (A.Y. 1991-92, 1995-96, 1996-97, and 2008-09). Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.8. Write-off of Bad Debts under Section 36(1)(vii):The Tribunal noted that this issue had been decided in favor of the assessee by the Supreme Court in The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.9. Claim of Deduction for Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts under Section 36(1)(viia):The Tribunal found that this issue had been consistently decided against the assessee in earlier years (A.Y. 2000-01, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000). Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.10. Chargeability of Interest under Section 234C:The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234C should be charged only on the returned income, not on the assessed income. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.11. Levy of Interest under Section 234D:The Tribunal found that this issue was covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Indian Oil Corporation. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.12. Taxation of Income from Foreign Branches:The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, consistent with earlier years' decisions (A.Y. 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2008-09).13. Disallowance of Staff Welfare Expenses:The Tribunal noted that this issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years (A.Y. 1992-93, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2008-09). Therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue was dismissed.14. Loss on Revaluation of Investments / Amortization of Premium on Securities:The Tribunal found that this issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years (A.Y. 1995-96, 1996-97, and 2008-09). Consequently, the ground raised by the Revenue was dismissed.15. Taxability of Interest on Securities:The Tribunal noted that this issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years (A.Y. 1991-92, 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1999-2000). Therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue was dismissed.16. Depreciation of Securities Held under 'Available For Sale' (AFS) and 'Held For Trading' (HFT) Categories:The Tribunal held that the depreciation on securities should be allowed without netting off appreciation, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT. The ground raised by the assessee was allowed.17. Additional Grounds on Write-off of Bad Debts and Recovery of Bad Debts under Section 41(4):The Tribunal restored these issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, consistent with earlier years' decisions (A.Y. 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2008-09).Conclusion:The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues being restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The decisions were largely consistent with previous rulings in the assessee's own cases.