AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....base for deciding the appeals of the assessee. The Grounds raised are as follows: 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is against the law and facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 11,41,31,065/- 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order on the issue considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of South India Bank Ltd and other judicial pronouncements pointed out by the appellant. 2.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that no disallowance can be made u/s 14A in the case of the Bank based on the facts of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the decision of the learned Assessing Officer with regard to the taxing of the profits from the sale of share of CanFin Homes Ltd. under the head Profits and Gains of Business instead of taxing the same under the head Capital Gains. 3.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the shares held by the bank in CanFin Homes Ltd. are to be treated as capital asset. 3.2. The learned CIT(A) failed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession as per section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. vi. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in not appreciating the Explanation 2 of the section 37(1) of the Act which clarifies that the expenditure incurred by an assessee on the Corporate Social Responsibility shall not be deemed to an expenditure for the purpose of business or profession. vii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting addition of Rs. 2.03.00,000/-made by the A.O. being expenditure prohibited in law, as per Explanation 1 to section 37. viii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that penalties levied under section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act are allowable expenditure. ix. Whether deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 r.w.r 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is to be allowed on the total outstanding advances including opening balances upon which the assessee bank has already claimed such deduction in earlier years or the same has to be allowed in respect of incremental advanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the Appeal with a direction to the AO to pass speaking order in light of the decision of Hon'ble SC in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. & others financial pronouncement as referred by the Assessee. 5.2 The ld. DR on the other hand intensely supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.1219/Bang/2019 & ITA No.186/PAN/2019 dated 8.8.2024, wherein the Tribunal held as under: "14. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in case of Canara Bank Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.390 & 501/Bang/2023 for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18, the Tribunal vide order dated 25.10.2023 held as under: "6. Considering rival submissions, we note that this issue has been settled by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 in ITA No.258/2020 dated 8.2.2021 observing as under :- " 4. Even though four su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act and if so read, it is clear that it disallows certain expenditures incurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other incomes which is includable in the total income for the purposes of chargeability to the Lax. It i4 equally well settled that expenditure is a pay out. In order to attract applicability of section 14,4 of the Act, there has to be a pay out and return of investment or a pay back is not such a debit item. [See: WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD SUPRA as well as M.4XOP INVESTMENTS LTD SUPRA]. In the instant case, the assessee has admittedly not incurred any expenditure. This case pertains to income on dividend, which by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be an expenditure to attract the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the first substantial question of law framed by this court is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. Learned counsel for parties, have fairly admitted that in case this court frames a substantial question of law that whether provisions of Section 115JA apply to the Banking Companies are not the remaining substantial quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the assessee. 7. Ground No.3 is with regard totaxing of the profit from the sale of shares of Can Fin Homes Ltd./CARE Ltd as business income instead of income from capital gains. 7.1. At the outset the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this issue has been accepted by the Revenue as no substantial question of law raised on this ground, though an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court against the Order on other grounds. The ld. A.R. also submitted that the identical issue in the assessee's own case came for adjudication before this Tribunal for the Asst. year 2013-14 in which the shares of care Ltd were sold and the gains were treated as exempt from tax u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee. This Tribunal directed to undertake a factual finding to check whether the corresponding assets were held in the past as stock in trade or as investments. If held as stock in trade then the profits arising thereof would have to be treated as business income. Accordingly, the issue was set-aside to the file of AO. In the present case, from the very beginni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evant to assessment year 2017-18, the bank has divested its stake of 13.45% in Can Fin Homes Ltd. with a view to augment resources to improve the capital base as advised by RBI and accordingly long term capital gain of Rs. 699,46,75,749/- relating to a strategic sale is offered to tax. It is also not disputed fact that the funds deployed in Can Fin Homes Ltd./CARE Ltd. are classified as investment and declared under the category HTM (Held to Maturity). Therefore, in our view, these shares cannot be treated as stock in trade as the assessee itself opts to treat them as Investments i.e. a capital Asset. Further, the CBDT vide circular No.6/2006 dated 29.2.2016 had categorically instructed that the AO in holding whether the surplus generated from sale of listed shares or other securities would be treated as capital gain or business income, shall take in to account the following: a) Where the assessee itself, irrespective of the period of holding the listed shares and securities, opts to treat them as stock in trade, the income arising from transfer of such shares/securities would be treated as its business income. b) In respect of listed shares and securities, held f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2024 wherein the Apex court held that as per the RBI's guideline dated 16/10/2000, there are three categories of securities i.e. HTM, AFS and HFT. As far as AFS and HFT concerned, there is no difficulty. When these two categories of securities are purchased, obviously, the same are not investments but are always held by Banks as stock-in-trade. In the present case the shares of CARE Ltd./ Can Fin Homes Ltd. are held as Investment under the category of HTM & therefore it cannot be treated at par with AFS & HFT categories. 8.5 We are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.1900/Bang/2017 dated 28.9.2018 for the AY 2013-14, wherein the Tribunal held as under: 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-tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere the assessee itself, irrespective of the period of holding the listed shares and securities, opts to treat them as stock-in-trade, the income arising from transfer of such shares/securities would be treated as 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 treatme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of being heard and to file details / submissions in this regard, which shall be considered by the Assessing Officer before deciding this issue. We hold and direct accordingly. Consequently, ground No.9 of assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 8.6 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), as well as discussed above this ground of the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee bank. 9. Ground No.4 of the appeal is with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. 9.1 The A.R of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in concurring the view taken by the AO by observing that since the assessee bank is an Indian company for the purposes of I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore liable to pay Minimum Alternate Tax on the book profits, as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act, for the year under consideration. Accordingly, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee on this issue. 9.2 The ld. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We are of the opinion that similar issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbai) in ITA Nos.4702 to 4706/Mum/2010 dtd. 30.06.2011 - Indian Bank vs Addl. CIT (ITAT) (Chennai) in ITA No.469/Mds/2010 dtd. 03.08.2011 - Union Bank of India (ITAT Mumbai) in ITA Nos. 4155 to4161 of 2011 dtd. 27.03.2012 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT I ITA No.447/2015 dtd 30.08.2017 = 2017-TIOL-1714-HC-DEL-IT - CIT vs Union Bank of India (2019) 308 CTR 797 (Bom) HC 52. In the above referred judgment of the Bombay High Court, at relevant page 8, para no.11 (paper book page no.13) the court has held as under: "This legal dichotomy emerging from the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 115JB particularly having regard to the first proviso contained therein in case of banking company, would convince us that machinery provision provided in sub- section (2) of section 115JB of the Act, would be rendered wholly unworkable in such a situation. In a well known judgment the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs B.C. Shrinivasa Setty, Vo. 128 ITR 294 = 2002-TIOL-587-SC-IT-LB, had observed that in the Income Tax Act, a charging section and the computing provisions together constitute an integrated co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Part II of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); or (b) being a company, to which the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) is applicable, shall, for the purposes of this section, prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of the Act governing such company: ] Provided that while preparing the annual accounts including profit and loss account,- (i) the accounting policies; (ii) the accounting standards adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account; (iii) the method and rates adopted for calculating the depreciation, shall be the same as have been adopted for the purpose of preparing such accounts including profit and loss account and laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with the provisions of section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956): Provided further that where the company has adopted or adopts the financial year under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), which is different from the previous year under thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LB." 58. However, the plea of the assessee with respect to nonapplicability of section 115JB to the Banking Companies was rejected by the ITAT Mumbai "B" Bench in ITA No. 1767/Mum/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of Bank of India vs ACIT Mumbai vide order dated 11th December, 2020. 59. There is no jurisdictional High Court decision or for that matter any other High Court decision against the assessee. In view of the fact that two use are possible, the view that favour the assessee may kindly be considered, more so in the case of a Nationalized Bank as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 = 2002TIOL-574-SC-IT-LB." 12. The Ld. DR though could not controvert the above observation by Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the above own case, placed reliance on the decision of Ld.CIT(A). 13. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of record placed before us. We note that decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in Oriental Bank(supra) has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein Hon'ble High Court has categorically observed that the revenue in case of Punjab Nationa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicable, who are required to prepare its statement of profit and loss account in accordance with provisions of the Act governing such company. For the sake of ready reference the amended subsection (2) of Section 115JB is again reproduced hereunder :- (2) Every assessee,- (a) being a company, other than a company referred to in clause (b), shall, for the purposes of this section, prepare its statement of profit and loss for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Schedule III to the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); or (b) being a company, to which the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 129 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) is applicable, shall, for the purposes of this section, prepare its statement of profit and loss for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of the Act governing such company: Provided that while preparing the annual accounts including statement of profit and loss,- (i) the accounting policies; ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India 35 (ii) the accounting standards adopted for preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss; (iii) the method ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applies to a company to which the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 129 of the Companies Act, 2013 is applicable; ii. once this condition is fulfilled, it requires such assessee for the purpose of this section to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of the Act governing such company. 43. Since 115JB is applicable to the company to which second proviso to Section 129(1) applies, therefore, it would be relevant to quote Section 129 of the Companies Act which reads as under :- "129. Financial statement-(1) The financial statements shall give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company or companies, comply with the accounting standards notified under section 133 and shall be in the form or forms as may be ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India 37 provided for different class or classes of companies in Schedule III: Provided that the items contained in such financial statements shall be in accordance with the accounting standards. Provided further that nothing contained in this subsection shall apply to any insurance or banking company or any company engaged in the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y as defined in section 5(c) of the BR Act). Section 5(c) of the BR Act defines a „banking company" as under: "(c) "banking company" means any company which transacts the business of banking in India" Therefore, for an entity to qualify as a banking company it should first of all, be a company' and secondly the said company should transact the business of banking in India. 46. The expression "company" has been defined in section 5(d) of the BR Act as under: ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India 39 "(d) "company" means any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); and includes a foreign company within the meaning of section 591 of that Act;" 47. Therefore, in so far as is relevant, the entity has to be a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Now 2013) to be regarded as a banking company. Section 3(1)(i) of the Companies Act, defines a 'company' as under: "(i) "company" means a company formed and registered under this Act or an existing company as defined in clause (ii)" 48. Therefore, it is sine-qua-non that for an entity to qualify as a comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 thereof states that for the purpose of Income Tax Act, ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India 41 every corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be an „,Indian company" and the company in which the public are „,substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the „company" has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions of the Income Tax Act would apply because Section 2(26) of the Act defines „Indian company" means the company formed and registered under the Companies Act and therefore, it is deemed to be a company under the Companies Act. 52. Section 11 of the Acquisition Act states that "For the purposes of Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), every corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be an Indian company and a company in which the public are substantially interested". Therefore, the said deeming fiction is created only for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. Further, for the purposes of the said Act, it treats every corresponding new bank to be an Indian company and also a company in which the public are substantially interested. 53. First....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istered under the Companies Act, 2013 nor under any other previous company law. Already the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (supra) as noted above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that only undertaking was acquired for the banking companies acquisition and transfer of invoking ordinance which was promulgated on 19/06/1969, which culminated into the Act of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. Thus, assessee cannot be treated as a company under the Companies Act, because it was never registered under the Companies Act. Ergo, the deeming fiction by way of Section 11 of the Acquisition Act has to be read purely in the context for the purpose of Income Tax Act where the corresponding new bank have been deemed to be an Indian Company and a company in which public are substantially interested. This deeming section cannot be extended to a company registered under the Companies Act to which alone Section 115JB is applicable. 56. Thus, we hold that Section 11 of the Acquisition Act which deals a corresponding new bank treated as Indian company for the purpose of Income Tax, however, Clause (b)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se shall be issued on or after the 1st day of April, 2020;] 57. The aforesaid clause (f) provides that if Central Government notifies any such entity then TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that at the time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued a Notification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat) 106] which reads as under :- 58. Income-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3)(iii)(f) Notification No. S. O. 710, dated February 16, 1970. (1) In pursuance of sub-clause (f) of clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notify with effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for the purposes of the said sub-clause: - 1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras 2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1. ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India 46 3. Allahabad Bank, 14, India Exchange Place, Calcutta-1. 4. Dena Bank, DevkaranNanjee Building, 17, Horniman Circle, Fort, Bombay-1. 5. Canara Bank, 112, Jayachamarajendr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; Mumbai, the ground no.5 of the assessee's appeal becomes infructuous. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No.210/Bang/2024 for the AY 2017-18. Since the appeal of the assessee is allowed on above terms as indicated above, the other appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1154/Bang/2023 for the AY 2018-19 is also allowed. 12. Now we adjudicate the cross appeals of the revenue by taking ITA Nos.222/Bang/2024 for the AY 2017-18 as base which are as follows: 12.1 The 1st & 2nd grounds of appeal of revenue are with regard to disallowance u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 12.2. The ld. A.R. relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 12.3. The ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Similar issue came for consideration before the ITAT in assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 1219/Bang/2019 & ITA No.186/PAN/2019 for the AY 2015-16 dated 8.8.2024 wherein the Tribunal held as under: "4. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee having already availed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia), it is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) as it will amount to double deduction. In our view, both AO as well as ld. CIT(A) have committed fundamental error by mixing up provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia). While 36(1)(vii) speaks of actual write off of bad debts in the books of account, section 36(1)(viia) even allows provision made towards bad and doubtful debts in respect of rural advances to the extent of provision made in the books of account subject to the ceiling fixed under clause (viia) of section 36(1). Proviso to section 36(1)(vii) operates only in a case where deduction is also claimed under section 36(1)(viia). In other words, proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to write off of bad debts relating to rural advances to the extent it exceeds the provision made u/s 36(1)(viia). If we examine the facts of the present case in the context of aforesaid statutory provision, it will be evident that assessee, though, has written off in the books of account an amount of Rs. 210.74 crore, but, in the computation of total income, the actual deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) is Rs. 209.08 crore representin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(a) applies only to rural advances." Concurring with the aforesaid majority view, Hon'ble CJI, S.H. Kapadia, as the then he was, held as under: "2. Under Section 36(1)(vii) of the ITA 1961, the tax payer carrying on business is entitled to a deduction, in the computation or taxable profits, of the amount of any debt which is established to have become a bad debt during the previous year, subject to certain conditions. However, a mere provision for bad and doubtful debt(s) is not allowed as a deduction in the computation of taxable profits. In order to promote rural banking and in order to assist the scheduled commercial banks in making adequate provisions from their current profits to provide for risks in relation to their rural advances, the Finance Act, inserted clause (viia) in subsection (1) of Section 36 to provide for a deduction, in the computation of taxable profits of all scheduled commercial banks, in respect of provisions made by them for bad and doubtful debts relating to advances made by their rural branches. The deduction is limited to a specified percentage of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches computed in the manner presc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of double deduction. In case of rural advances, which are covered by the provisions of clause (viia), there would be no such double deduction. The proviso limits its application to the case of a bank to which clause (viia) applies. Clause (viia) applies only to rural advances. This has been explained by the Circulars issued by CBDT. Thus, the proviso indicates that it is limited in its application to bad debt(s) arising out of rural advances of a bank. It follows that if the amount of bad debt(s) actually written off in the accounts of the bank represents only debt(s) arising out of urban advances, the allowance thereof in the assessment is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso to clause (vii)." Thus, considered in light of principle laid down as referred to above, when the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to bad debts written off relating to rural advances, the same cannot be applied for disallowing deduction claimed on account of write off of bad and doubtful debts relating to nonrural/urban advances. As far as application of explanation to section 36(1)(vii) is concerned, we agree with the ld. AR that its operation will be prospective and wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above order of the Tribunal, taking a consistent view, we allow the above ground taken by the assessee." 13.1 In view of the above order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, taking a consistent view, we dismiss the above ground taken by the revenue. 14. Ground No.3 to 6 in revenue's appeal are with regard to disallowance of CSR expenditure. 14.1. The ld. A.R. of the assessee relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 14.2. The ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Similar issue came for consideration before the ITAT in assessee's own case in ITA No.391 & 392/Bang/2023 & ITA No.663/Bang/2023 dated 22.12.2023 for the AY 2019-20, wherein the Tribunal held as under: "24. Ground Nos. 3-4 is against allowing the claim of Rs. 17,12,48,543/- by Ld.CIT(A) towards CSR expenditure. The Ld.AO disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee by holding that these expenditure were not for the purposes of business and were added back to the total income of assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) held as under: "8.7 I have gone through the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... training centre for educating and training people with a view to creating awareness, developing local leadership among the community, development through self help, utilization of local resources and talents. The Trust came into existence by virtue of a deed of declaration of trust dated 26.1.1992 with the object of taking up developmental activities particularly for the upliftment of the economically weaker sections of the society. The trust also played catalyst role in the process of social economic development. The Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development has instructed public sector banks to be lead institutions in managing and running such institutes. It is in this context that the assessee has contributed a sum of Rs. 3,82,69,960/-. The Revenue authorities took the view that this was in the nature of donation which can be claimed as a deduction only under section 80G of the Act. The decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on this point is very clear and is to the effect that provisions of section 37(1) and 80G of the Act are not mutually exclusive if the contribution by the assessee in the form of donation of the category specified in section 80G of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eral in nature. The Ld.AO disallowed the same treating it to be in the nature of penal in nature. On an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) the disallowance was upheld. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us now. At the outset it is submitted that a similar disallowance was made in case of Union Bank of India vs. DCIT reported in (2022) (3) TMI 1131 by coordinate bench of this Tribunal. The Ld.AR placed reliance of the observation of the this tribunal in that case of Union Bank of India(supra) and submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Ld.AO for necessary verification in light of the directions therein. The Ld. DR also did not object to the request of the Ld.AR in remanding the issue to the Ld.AO. 21.2 We note that this Tribunal in case of Union Bank of India vs. DCIT (supra) observed and held as under: "16.4 We heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the Mumbai Tribunal in IDBI Bank Ltd., case (Supra) while considering a similar penalty payment to RBI has held that the amount paid by the assessee is not in the nature of penalty. The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in this cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration with the above observation and accordingly, we partly allow the ground of revenue for statistical purposes. 18. Ground No.9 is with regard to disallowance u/s 36(1) (viia) of the Act and computation u/r 6ABA. 18.1 The ld. A.R. relied on the orders of the ld. Cit(A)/NFAC. 18.2 The ld. D.R. on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Similar issue came for consideration before the ITAT in assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 1219/Bang/2019 & ITA No.186/PAN/2019 for the AY 2015-16 dated 8.8.2024 wherein the Tribunal held as under: "16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. With regard to disallowance u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act on computation under Rule 6ABA, this issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in ITA Nos.390 & 501/Bang/2023 for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18 dated 25.10.2023 wherein held as under: "17. After considering the rival submissions, we find that this issue was considered by this Tribunal in the latest judgement in assessee's own case for AYs 2014-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies 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 v. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]" 10. It is further held that the said decision has been followed in Vijaya Bank case. The manner in which the computation has been made has been given in the case of Vijaya Bank Case. Order passed by the Tribunal in Canara Bank's case followed in Vijaya Bank case has attained finality and the Revenue has not challenged the said order. Further, the High Court of Calcutta, while considering an identical situation as recorded thus, "Mr. Khaitan, learned senior Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and submitted that the computation to be made as prescribed by rule 6ABA is for the purpose of fixing the limit of the deduction available under section 36(1)(viia). Clauses (a) and (b) in rule 6ABA cannot be given the restricted interpretation. The amounts of advances as outstanding at the last day of each month would be a fluctuating figure depending on the outstanding as increased or reduced respectively by advances made and repayments received. The....