Decision upholds bank's HTM premium amortization; rejects 14A/Rule 8D, 43B, depreciation, venture capital and MTM derivatives; 36(1)(viii) remitted

ITAT DELHI-AT upheld the bank's accounting treatment: amortization of premium on HTM securities over holding period allowed and ground dismissed. Additions disallowing depreciation on investments, venture capital investments and MTM derivatives, inter-office adjustments, section 14A/Rule 8D adjustments, depreciation on goodwill and deduction under section 43B were rejected, findings favoring the assessee following earlier HC/SC precedents. Deduction under section 36(1)(viii) was allowed but remitted to the AO for quantification in accordance with prior directions. Overall the Tribunal ruled largely for the assessee and against the Revenue.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

(a) Whether the deletion of addition of Rs. 29,85,52,381/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding loss on amortization of premium on investment was justified.

(b) Whether the deletion of addition relating to disallowance of deduction of Rs. 508,57,53,935/- claimed on depreciation on investment was correct.

(c) Whether the deletion of addition of Rs. 2,78,63,000/- regarding disallowance of inter office adjustment was proper.

(d) Whether the deletion of addition of Rs. 84,55,68,875/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified despite the assessee earning exempt income and the mandatory nature of section 14A provisions.

(e) Whether the deletion of addition of Rs. 25,86,405/- made on depreciation of goodwill was appropriate, considering whether goodwill qualifies as a business or commercial right under section 32(1).

(f) Whether the allowance of deduction of Rs. 35,78,00,000/- credited to the Pension Fund under section 43B was legally justified, given that the amount was not payable as per the pension fund terms.

(g) Whether the deletion of addition of Rs. 95,87,092/- relating to investment in venture capital fund (VCF) and mark-to-market (MTM) derivatives was correct, particularly regarding the set-off of losses against exempt capital gains.

(h) Whether the allowance of deduction of Rs. 251,69,68,788/- under section 36(1)(viii) was proper despite the assessee not providing details of exact profit derived from eligible business.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Loss on Amortization of Premium on Investment

The assessee bank amortized the premium paid on acquisition of Held to Maturity (HTM) securities over the remaining life of the securities, following RBI guidelines. The bank treated the entire profit on sale of securities as business income, not capital gains. The AO made an addition disallowing the amortization loss.

The Tribunal relied on a recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, which upheld the amortization treatment. The High Court reasoned that HTM securities are held till redemption, and premium paid over face value should be amortized over the holding period. Market fluctuations cause premium or discount, and amortization reflects this accurately.

The Revenue's challenge was dismissed as the Court found no infirmity in the accounting treatment. The Tribunal followed this precedent and dismissed Ground No. 1.

Issue (b) and (g): Depreciation on Investment and Investment in Venture Capital Fund & MTM Derivatives

The bank treated its securities (except joint ventures and subsidiaries) as stock-in-trade, offering interest income and profit/loss on sale as business income/loss. Diminution in value was claimed as depreciation/loss, and appreciation was offered to tax. The AO disallowed depreciation claimed on valuation of securities under Held for Trading (HFT) and Available for Sale (AFS) categories.

The Tribunal noted that this issue is recurring and settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) and by coordinate benches of the ITAT in earlier years. The Court held that the bank's accounting treatment, following RBI guidelines and mercantile system of accounting, is appropriate. The AO's suspicion that opening and closing stock values were not properly adjusted was unsubstantiated by evidence of specific transactions.

Regarding losses on VCF and MTM derivatives, the Revenue argued losses on exempt LTCG income should not be allowed as set-off. The Tribunal, following prior decisions, held that losses and gains are to be considered on a net basis for the same head of income, and dismissed the Revenue's ground.

Thus, Grounds No. 2 and 7 were dismissed.

Issue (c): Disallowance of Inter Office Adjustment

The inter office adjustment account represents outstanding entries among branches and offices of the bank, pending reconciliation. These do not generate revenue and are merely accounting entries pending settlement.

Both parties agreed that this issue is settled in favour of the assessee by coordinate bench decisions for AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11. The Tribunal followed these precedents and dismissed Ground No. 3.

Issue (d): Addition under Section 14A read with Rule 8D

Section 14A mandates disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. The AO made an addition for expenditure related to exempt income earned by the bank.

The assessee contended that no interest expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income as non-interest bearing funds sufficed. Also, disallowance under section 14A applies only if there is a dominant and immediate connection between expenditure and exempt income.

The Tribunal found the issue to be settled in favour of the assessee by the Delhi High Court in multiple decisions, following the Supreme Court's ruling in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (2021). The Court held that disallowance under section 14A is not automatic and requires a proximate connection between expenditure and exempt income.

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 was dismissed.

Issue (e): Depreciation on Goodwill

The bank claimed depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation with another bank, treating goodwill as an intangible asset under section 32(1) read with section 2(11). The AO disallowed the claim, contending goodwill is not a business or commercial right.

The assessee relied on Delhi High Court decisions allowing depreciation on goodwill as an intangible asset representing commercial rights acquired under amalgamation.

The Revenue conceded the point. The Tribunal followed the High Court's ruling and dismissed Ground No. 5.

Issue (f): Deduction of Contribution to Pension Fund under Section 43B

The bank contributed Rs. 35.78 crore to the Employees Pension Fund based on actuarial valuation and compliance with Accounting Standard (AS) 15 (Revised). The AO questioned the deduction as the amount was not payable as per the pension fund's terms.

The assessee argued the contribution was a provision for pension liability, a normal business expense, and fully compliant with section 43B. The Revenue conceded the facts.

The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, held the contribution was actually paid and allowable as a business expense under section 43B. Ground No. 6 was dismissed.

Issue (h): Deduction under Section 36(1)(viii)

The bank claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) for long-term advances towards eligible businesses such as industrial, agricultural, infrastructure development, and housing. The Revenue challenged the claim on the ground that the assessee did not provide details of exact profit from eligible business.

The assessee submitted that it transferred Rs. 251.70 crore to revenue and other reserves out of profits and maintained the amount, fulfilling the conditions under section 36(1)(viii). The bank's profit and loss account and balance sheet were prepared as per the Banking Regulation Act format.

The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had earlier allowed the claim but remanded for quantification. The Delhi High Court confirmed the ITAT's direction and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the claim subject to quantification by the AO as per CIT(A)'s directions, partly allowing Ground No. 8.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The securities under HTM category are those that are held till its redemption /maturity. Clearly, if any premium is paid for acquiring the said securities over and above the face value or the redemption value of those securities, it would be apposite to amortize the same during the holding period." (Para 15, Delhi High Court)

"Since the assessee has been maintaining its accounts on mercantile system, they are entitled to show his real income by taking into account market value of such investments in arriving at real taxable income." (Para 36, ITAT)

"Section 14A provides that any expenditure in relation to income not forming part of total income has to be disallowed. Disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A can be made only when there is connection between the expenditure incurred and the income exempt." (Para 19, ITAT)

"The provision of Rs 35.78 Crore is an allowable expenditure being incurred wholly and exclusively by the purpose of business on account of commercial expediency and compliance to AS-15 (Revised), subject to section 43B." (Para 30, ITAT)

"The Revenue cannot be aggrieved by the decision of the ITAT in allowing deduction under section 36(1)(viii) and quantification is to be done by the AO as per directions of CIT(A)." (Para 37, ITAT)

Core principles established include the legitimacy of amortizing premium on HTM securities, allowance of depreciation on investments treated as stock-in-trade under mercantile accounting, the necessity of proximate connection for disallowance under section 14A, recognition of goodwill as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation, allowance of pension fund contributions under section 43B if actually paid, and the entitlement to deduction under section 36(1)(viii) subject to quantification.

Final determinations were largely in favour of the assessee, dismissing most of the Revenue's grounds except partially allowing Ground No. 8 for quantification purposes.

---