Delhi HC allows bank's tax deductions on stock-in-trade shares, depreciation claims, and bad debt provisions following established precedents

Delhi HC ruled in favor of a nationalized bank on multiple tax issues. Section 14A disallowance was correctly deleted as shares were held as stock-in-trade, following SC precedent in Maxopp Investment Ltd. HTM securities issue was resolved per Oriental Bank of Commerce precedent. Bank was allowed depreciation on temporary structures based on consistency principle. Interest on overdue deposits and bad debt provisions were allowed following established HC and SC precedents respectively.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment concerns appeals related to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, AY 2015-16, and AY 2013-14.

First Issue [Addition on account of Section 14A]:
The Tribunal correctly ruled that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act did not apply to a nationalized bank holding shares as stock-in-trade, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments. The disallowance made under Section 14A was rightfully deleted due to the nature of the shares held.

Second Issue [HTM Securities]:
The decision of a coordinate bench in a previous case covered the second issue, hence no substantial question of law arose for consideration in this case regarding HTM Securities.

Third Issue [Depreciation on temporary erections]:
The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal against the allowance of depreciation on temporary wooden structures, citing a previous decision in favor of the assessee. The principle of consistency supported the allowance of depreciation on temporary structures for the respondent/assessee.

Fourth Issue [Interest on overdue deposits]:
The issue was found to be covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench, leading to the conclusion that no substantial question of law needed to be addressed concerning interest on overdue deposits.

Fifth Issue [Disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act]:
The disallowance of the provision for bad and doubtful debts was upheld in favor of the respondent/assessee based on a Supreme Court judgment. No substantial question of law was identified in relation to this issue.

In summary, the judgment addressed various issues related to different assessment years, with the Tribunal's decisions being upheld based on legal precedents and previous rulings. The appeals were closed, and no substantial questions of law were found to arise in the issues discussed.

---