TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 2109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpleted under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.27.12.2016, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.5897,92,23,130 in view of the following additions / disallowances :- i) Disallowance of bad debts written off Rs.1143,68,00,000 ii) Disallowance of claim of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) Rs.415,26,46,585 iii) Disallowance of Depreciation on AFS & HFT category of investments. Rs.279,12,50,807 iv) Disallowance of Depreciation on HTM category of investments. Rs.507,15,29,634 v) Appreciation on investments not offered to tax. Rs.366,51,41,573 vi) Unrealised gain on revaluation of forward contracts. Rs.77,91,16,260 vii) Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. Rs.1,67,500 viii) Disallowance u/s.14A Rs.24,91,38,500 ix) Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - payment made to NPCI Rs.8,05,15,590 x) Amortisation of Premium in respect of HTM category of investments. Rs.88,31,63,478 xi) Profit on sale of shares of CARE Ltd. Rs.161,89,97,600 xii) Depreciation on ATM Rs.7,24,63,522 xiii) Disallowance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of Rs.1143,08,00,000/- debit to Profit & Loss Account and reduced from 'loans and advances' in Balance sheet amounts to write off. 2.7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in understanding the concept of write off norms as defined/explained in Reserve Bank of India guidelines. 2.8. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, failed to appreciate that fact that the Appellant has offered to tax the 'write back' on account of recovery/upgradation of such kind of bad debts written off in the earlier years u/s 41 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2.9. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in making the addition on surmises & conjunctures. 2.10. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, failed to appreciate the fact that on the same set of facts the jurisdictional Appellate Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court have allowed the deductions to various Banks. 2.11. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income tax -Appeals erred in upholding the taxing of the recovery from bad debts which were not allowed as deduction u/s Sec 36(1)(vii). 3. The learned Commissioner of Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts in making an addition on account reversal of depreciation on AFS & HFT Category of investments as per books amounting to Rs.366,51,41,573/-. 5.1. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessee Bank has not claimed the depreciation as per Books in earlier years. 5.2. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact it is only notional income and not liable to tax. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in law in sustaining the disallowance of unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts in foreign exchange amounting to Rs.77,91,16,260/-. 6.1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, failed to appreciate the fact that the unrealised gains cannot be taxed and only real income can be taxed. 6.2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, failed to appreciate the fact that the unrealised gains did not accrue to the appellant bank. 6.3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, failed to appreciate the fact that the entries in the books alone cannot be the basis for taxing a receipt. 6.4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equipments by treating the same as plant & Machinery. 10.1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in treating the ATM and other computer equipments as plant & machinery instead of computer, despite various decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal and High Courts favouring the classification adopted by the Appellant. 10.2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in treating the ATM and other computer equipments as plant & machinery instead of computer, despite various decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal and High Courts favouring the classification adopted by the Appellant. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in law and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.28,53,74,990/- 12. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in law in confirming the addition of interest on Income Tax Refunds of Rs.95,09,19,255/- though the same is not recognized as income in the books of the Appellant Bank. 12.1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred not appreciation the fact that the appellant Bank is accounting the interest on income tax refunds only whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al written off amounted to Rs.1143.08 Crores. This non-rural written off was debited to the profit and loss account and credited to 'Advances Prudentially Written Off Account' , which is ultimately reduced form the loans and advances. 6.2.2 The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the net advances as shown in the Balance Sheet is after reducing the bad debts written off. It was also submitted that a statement containing recovery made in a few accounts that were written off in earlier years, but recovered in the year under consideration could be found at page 12 of the Paper Book and the said recovery was credited to the profit and loss account and offered to tax as 'Other Income'. The learned Authorised Representative finally concluded contending that since the write off was debited to the Profit and Loss Account and reduced from the Balance Sheet, it amounted to write off. In support of the assessee's claim for write off of bad debts, the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the following judgements : (i) Decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case - Canara Bank Vs. JCIT, LTU (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt' (GL Code 163301) which is part of the profit and loss account and has reduced the write off from Gross Advances in the Balance Sheet. The authorities below disallowed the write off on the ground that the individual accounts are not squared off at the branch level. We find that this issue of write off has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the assessee's own case reported in 2010 (323 ITR 160) (SC), wherein at paras 8 & 9 thereof it was held as under : " 8. Coming to the second question, we may reiterate that it is not in dispute that s. 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act applies both to banking and non-banking businesses. The manner in which the write off is to be carried out has been explained hereinabove. It is important to note that the assessee-bank has not only been debiting the P&L a/c to the extent of the impugned bad debt, it is simultaneously reducing the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end, as stated hereinabove. In other words, the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end in the balance sheet is shown as net of the provisions for impugned debt. However, what is being insisted upon by the AO is that mere reductio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if bad debt is written off by closing the borrower's account individually, then the repaid amount in subsequent years will be credited to the P&L a/c on which the assessee-bank has to pay tax. Although, prima facie, this argument of the Department appears to be valid, on a deeper consideration, it is not so for three reasons. Firstly, the head office accounts clearly indicate, in the present case, that, on repayment in subsequent years, the amounts are duly offered for tax. Secondly, one has to keep in mind that, under the accounting practice, the accounts of the rural branches have to tally with the accounts of the head office. If the repaid amount in subsequent years is not credited to the P&L a/c of the head office, which is ultimately what matters, then, there would be a mismatch between the rural branch accounts and the head office accounts. Lastly, in any event, s. 41(4) of 1961 Act, inter alia, lays down that, where a deduction has been allowed in respect of a bad debt or a part thereof under s. 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act, then, if the amount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference between the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvances outstanding at the end of each month is to be considered. The learned CIT (Appeals) disregarded, both the contentions of the assessee and the judicial pronouncements cited and upheld the Assessing Officer's view that it is only the incremental advances that has to be considered for the purpose of computing AAA. 7.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee reiterated the submission that the language of Rule 6ABA is very clear and does not mandate that only incremental advances has to be considered and nothing can be read into it as has been done by the authorities below. It was submitted that this issue has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]. 7.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative for revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 7.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the issue before us; i.e. in respect of the computation of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the scheduled bank. Explanation : In this rule, rural branch and scheduled bank shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Explanation to clause (viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36." From a bare reading of the above rule it is crystal clear that the said rules prescribe three steps for computing AAA in the following manner: Step One - In respect of each rural branch, note down the amounts of advances outstanding at the end of the last day of each month comprised in the previous year and aggregate the amounts so noted. Step Two- Divide the aggregate amount arrived at in Step One by the number of months for which the outstanding amounts have been taken into account for the purpose of Step One. Step Three- Aggregate the amounts arrived at under Step Two in respect of all the rural branches. Thus, it is clear that the said Rules do not provide for only fresh advances made by each rural branch during each month alone is to be considered. It only prescribes that the amount of advances made by rural branch and is outstanding at the end of the last day of each month shall be aggregated. Having regard to the plain provisions of the IT Rules, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 16,35,55,829.00 whereas assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 5,16,46,976, which is well within the provision permissible under section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 3,88,25,673. However, as far as deduction of Rs. 18,79,704 is concerned, the same cannot be allowed u/s 36(1)(vii) considering the fact such amount has not exceeded the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia). At the same time, alternative claim of the assessee that it is to be allowed u/s 37(1), in our view, is acceptable. On a perusal of the assessment order and the facts and materials available on record, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department has not controverted this fact. Therefore, in our view, the waiver of interest at the instance of the State Government, has to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1). Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 18,79,704 though, for a different reason. The grounds raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it was only after considering its own decision in the case of ING Vysya Bank (supra) that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Karnataka Bank Vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Kar). Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the investments of the bank are stock in trade and are to be valued at lower of cost or market value and the resultant depreciation is an allowable deduction. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that the decision n the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), was followed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the assessee's own case of Vijaya Bank in their order in ITA No.687/2008. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's bank's own case (supra) and also by the case of Vijaya Bank in ITA No.1252/Bang/2016 dt.5.1.2018 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 8.3 The ld. CIT DR placed strong reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer which wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n came up for consideration in Assessee's own case in AY 10-11 in ITA No.1310/Bang/2012 and this Tribunal upheld similar order of CIT(A). The following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal:- "21. We have considered the rival submissions. Similar issue as to whether depreciation on investments held under the category "Held to Maturity" can be allowed as deduction came up for consideration in the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) before the ITAT Bangalore Bench. The Tribunal on the issue held as follows: "58. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and the ld. counsel for the assessee. The ld. DR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. ING Vysya Bank Ltd. in ITA No.2886/2005 dated 06.06.2012. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka took a view that the guidelines issued by the RBI will not be relevant while computing income under the Income-tax Act. The Hon'ble Court further took the view that every investment held by a bank cannot be considered as stock-in-trade. The Hon'ble High Court finally concluded that 30% of the investments can be clothed to the character of stock-in-trade an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the ITAT, Mumbai and ITAT, Chennai. Following the above decisions, we are deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. This ground of appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 60. Apart from the above, the ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ING Vysya Bank (supra) is per incuriam the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC). He brought to our notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the practice of nationalized bank governed by Banking Regulation Act, following mercantile system of accounting both for book keeping as well for income-tax purposes. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the method adopted by the banks valuing stock-in-trade (investments) at cost in balance sheet in accordance with the Banking Regulation Act and valuing the same at cost or market value, whichever was lower for income-tax purposes. The Hon'ble Court took the view that all investments held by a bank are to be regarded as stock-in-trade. 61. The ld. counsel for the assessee further drew our attention to a very ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee, the Assessing Officer is directed to withdraw the amortisation of premium allowed by the learned CIT (Appeals) at para 12.1 of the impugned order. 9. Ground No.5 (5.1 & 5.2) - Appreciation on Investments. 9.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee assails the action of the authorities below in adding back the appreciation on investments as per Books amounting to Rs.366,51,41,572. The facts of the matter as emanate from the record are that the assessee bank has written back provision for depreciation on investments and credited the same to the profit and loss account (viz. item 11(g) in the statement of income from Business). The Assessing Officer was of the view and held that the appreciation as per books amounting to Rs.366.51 Crores has to be brought to tax. On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 9.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative for he assessee submitted that the amount written back by the assessee bank is the appreciation in the value of investments as per the books, as per RBI Guidelines. It is contended that since the assessee bank adopts different methods of valuing the investments for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case, reported in (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (ITAT) (Bang.) 10.3 Per contra, the ld. CIT, DR placed reliance on the findings rendered by the authorities below on this issue. 10.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the issue before us; i.e. treatment of unrealized foreign exchange gain, has been considered and held in favour of the assessee by the decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in order reported in (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)] dt.15.9.2017; wherein at para 28 thereof it has been held as under :- " 28. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee-bank has recognized as income in the profit and loss account on account of unrealized Forward exchange contracts. However, same was claimed as deduction in the computation of income. It is also undisputed fact that income is recognized only on hypothetical basis which has not accrued to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....satisfaction as required under Section 14A(2) of the Act, no disallowance could be made by invoking Rule 8D. It was further submitted that even without the earning of this tax free income, the assessee had to maintain huge investment portfolio for the purpose of SLR requirements which is a statutory requirement to carry on its business. In support of the assessee's claim, the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decisions of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case (supra) and also in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra). 11.3 The ld. CIT,DR for revenue placed reliance on the orders of the Assessing Officer on this issue. 11.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that this issue before us is covered in favour of the assessee bank by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case (supra) and also in the decision in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra). At paras 12.4.1 and 12.4.2 of the decision in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra), the co-ordinate bench has held as under :- " 12.4.1 We have heard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities below in disallowing expenditure of Rs.8,05,15,596 u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act; being payments made to NPCI. As per the details on record before us, in the year under consideration, the assessee bank had incurred expenditure of Rs.8,05,15,596; on which payments the assessee had not deducted tax at source. The Assessing Officer held that since NPCI is providing technical services to the assessee bank, the payments made in this regard are liable to TDS under Section 194J of the Act and in view of the assessee's failure to do so, disallowed the aforesaid amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision in the matter. 12.2 The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that since it is a standard facility, the same is not covered under the purview of the provisions of Sec. 194J of the Act as technical services. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd., reported in (2016) 67 taxman.com 356 (SC). It was further contended that in any case, the assessee bank had submitted Form N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered or available which would not be covered by the aforesaid provision of the Act. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter which, in our considered view, would require a specific notice. The service made available by the Bombay Stock Exchange [BSE Online Trading (BOLT) System] for which the charges in question had been paid by the appellant-assessee are common services that every member of the Stock Exchange is necessarily required to avail of to carry out trading in securities in the Stock Exchange. The view taken by the High Court that a member of the Stock Exchange has an option of trading through an alternative mode is not correct. A member who wants to conduct his daily business in the Stock Exchange has no option but to avail of such services. Each and every transaction by a member involves the use of the services provided by the Stock Exchange for which a member is compulsorily required to pay an additional charge (based on the transaction value) over and above the charges for the membership in the Stock Exchange. The above features of the services provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed the same as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim holding as under at para 15.2 of the order of assessment :- On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's order on this issue. 13.2.1 On this issue, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee made the following submissions. It was submitted that the assessee bank made a strategic investment in a rating company called CARE Ltd. (CARE) on 20.12.1993 and at that point of time CARE was an unlisted company. The assessee bank who had investment of 22.8% in the share capital of CARE and IDBI Bank which held 25.79% of shares of CARE were treated as promoters on account of the substantial share holding. Subsequently, SEBI was said to be willing to treat CARE as a professionally managed company and exempt the assessee, Canara Bank and IDBI Bank as being treated as promoters. However, both these banks were treated as principal share holders as each of them held more than 15% of the equity shares of CARE. During the F.Y.2012-13; i.e. the year under consideration, CARE decided to come out with an IPO by way of sale of stake by the existing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her as capital asset and it is based on the intention of holding that the treatment is to be decided. To a query from the Bench as to how the investment in CARE Ltd. have been treated in the Books, the learned Authorised Representative drew our attention to Balance Sheet (placed at page 124 of the Paper Book) and submitted that the shares of CARE Ltd. have been included in Investments and to Schedule 8 on page 130 of the Annual Report to submit that the holding in CARE Ltd., is included under the item shares in Schedule 8 - Investments. 13.5.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is a settled principle that it is based on the intention at the time of purchase and also treatment in the books that the issue of whether in the case on hand the profits arising on sale of shares of CARE Ltd. by the assessee in the year under consideration are to be treated as business income on account of holding shares as stock-in-trade, as held by Revenue OR as Capital Gains since they are investments, as claimed by the assessee. In this regard in the light of the principles stated in CBDT Circulars on the subject (supra), the Hon'ble G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s its business income, (b) In respect of listed shares and securities held for a period of more than 12 months immediately preceding the date of its transfer, if the assessee desires to treat the income arising from the transfer thereof as Capital Gain, the same shall not be put to dispute by the Assessing Officer. However, this stand, once taken by the assessee in a particular Assessment Year, shall remain applicable in subsequent Assessment Years also and the taxpayers shall not be allowed to adopt a different/contrary stand in this regard in subsequent years; (c) In all other cases, the nature of transaction (i.e. whether the same is in the nature of capital gain or business income) shall continue to be decided keeping in view the aforesaid Circulars issued by the CBDT. 5. It is reiterated that the above principles have been formulated with the sole objective of reducing litigation and maintaining consistency in approach on the issue of treatment of income derived from transfer of shares and securities. All the relevant provisions of the Act shall continue to apply on the transactions involving transfer of shares and securities." 7. Two things....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground No.10 (10.1 & 10.2) - Disallowance of Depreciation on ATMs. 14.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee assails that the decision of authorities below in allowing depreciation on ATMs @ 15% instead of 60% as claimed by the assessee. As per the details on record, the assessee bank treated the ATM Machines as computers and claimed depreciation thereon @ 60%. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore in ITA No.1063/Bang/2014 dt.27.5.2016 held that ATMs are not computers and allowed depreciation thereon @ 15%. On appeal, the learned CIT(Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 14.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited (supra). We find that this issue has been held in favour of revenue and against the assessee by the decision of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra) in which the Tribunal held that ATMs are not computers and hence depreciation thereon is to be allowed @ 15% only. Respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue, this issue has considered and held against the assessee and in favour of revenue by the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Benches in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 2015 (7) TMI 524 (ITAT-Mumbai). Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the ITAT, Mumbai (supra), we dismiss ground No.12 raised by the assessee. 17. In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed. Revenue's Appeal in ITA No.1882/Bang/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14. 18. In its appeal, revenue has raised the following grounds :- "1. The order of CIT (Appeals) is opposed to the facts and law in so far as the below issues have been decided against the Revenue. 2. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the provisions of Sec. 115JB are not applicable to the assessee. 3. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of depreciation on assets leased to certain companies." 19. Ground No.1, being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon. 20. Ground No.2 - Applicability of Sec.115JB of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 2012 and also the grounds relating to computation of 'Book Profit', if it is held that Sec. 115JB of the Act is applicable to the assessee bank. Needless to add, the learned CIT(Appeals) shall provide the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details / submissions in this regard which shall be considered before deciding this issue. We hold and direct accordingly. Consequently, ground No.2 of Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. Ground No.3 - Depreciation on leased assets. 21.1 In this ground, Revenue assails the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) in allowing depreciation on leased assets to Kedia Group of companies. 21.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements. This issue is only consequential in nature as in earlier years, a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in M.P. Nos.42 & 43/Bang/2016 and in ITA No.684/Bang/2012 & 813/Bang/2011 for Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2007-08 has allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on leased assets to Kedia Group of companies. These orders have been referred to and fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ower. 3.3 The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals erred in not considering the fact that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the claim of loss on valuation of Investments in assesses own case. 3.4 The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals failed to appreciate the fact that once an income is taxed under the Head Business / Profession, then the stock on hand should be considered as stock in trade and the valuation loss arising by valuing the same at lower of cost or market value is an allowable deduction. 3.5 The learned Commissioner of Income tax -Appeals failed to appreciate the fact that the method followed for AFS and HFT category of Investments is different from the method followed in Books. 4 The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals erred in law in sustaining the disallowance of unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts in foreign exchange amounting to Rs.249,49,28,650/-. 4.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals failed to appreciate the fact that the unrealised gains cannot be taxed and only real income can be taxed. 4.2 The learned Commissioner of Income tax - App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as plant & Machinery. 8.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals erred in treating the ATM and other computer equipments as plant & machinery instead of computer, despite various decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal and High Courts favouring the classification adopted by the Appellant. 9 The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals not dealt with the ground of the appellant bank with regard to disallowance of penalty paid for infringement of RBI under FEMA guidelines amounting to Rs.3,00,10,000/-. 10 The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals not dealt with the ground of the appellant bank with regard to deduction u/s 80G on donation made by the appellant Bank. 11 The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals erred in law and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.14,85,15,796/-." 24. Ground No.1 (supra), being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon. 25. Ground No.2 (2.1to2.4) - Disallowance u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. 25.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee assails the orders of the authorities below in disallowing its claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the decisions of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case, viz. Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (supra). Respectfully following the same (supra), in this year also, ground No.4 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 28. Ground No.5 (5.1 to 5.2) - Disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. 28.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee assails the orders of the authorities below in making a disallowance amounting to Rs.22,26,96,500 u/s.14A of the Act. 28.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the facts and circumstances of the case on the issue raised in this ground are similar to that raised by the assessee in Ground No.7 of its appeal in ITA No.1900/Bang/2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14 (supra); wherein we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the decisions of co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case, viz. Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (supra) and in the case of Vijaya Bank in ITA No.1252/Bang/2016 for Assessment Year 2010-11 (Department's appeal). Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d before deciding the issue. We hold and direct accordingly. Consequently, ground No.7 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 31. Ground No.8 - Disallowances of Depreciation on ATMs. 31.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee's assails the orders of the authorities below in disallowing its claim of being allowed depreciation on ATMs amounting to Rs.3,27,62,519 @ 60%; by not treating them as computers. 31.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the facts and circumstances of the case on this issue raised in this ground by the assessee is similar to that raised by the assessee in ground No.10 of its appeal in ITA No.1900/Bang/2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14 (supra), wherein we have decided the issue against the assessee following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore in ITA No.1063/Bang/2014 dt.27.5.2016. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench (supra), in this year also, ground No.8 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 32. Ground No.9 : Disallowance of penalty paid to RBI under FEMA G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation on merits, after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details / submissions required which shall be considered by the learned CIT(Appeals) before deciding the issue. We hold and direct accordingly. Consequently, ground No.10 of assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 34. Ground No.11 - Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 34.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee assails the orders of the authorities below in disallowing expenditure of Rs.14,85,15,796 u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 34.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the facts and circumstances of the case on the issue raised in this ground are similar to that raised by the assessee in ground No.11 of its appeal in ITA No.1900/Bang/2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14 (supra), wherein we have remanded the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination and verification of the assessee's claims. Following the same in this year also, we remand this issue to the file of the assessee for examination and verification of the assessee's claim, as directed by us in the assessee's a....