AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bad in law & contrary to the facts of the case. 2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erred in upholding the disallowance of the penalty paid to RBI of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 37 of the Act. 2.1 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the penalty levied is covered by Explanation 1 of section 37 of the Act. 2.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the penalty paid to Reserve Bank of India was not towards infraction of any law and is only for non-compliance of certain procedural guidelines. 3. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of the CSR expense of Rs. 11,84,18,000/- 3.1 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the expenses have resulted in generation of goodwill for the bank and are voluntary in nature. 3.2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that only pure CSR expenses spent under a statutory obligation is covered by the Explanation 2 to Sec 37(1). 4. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred not admitting the additional ground relating to the non-taxing of the recovery from the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bank Limited - 20108 (6) TMI 757 - ITAT Mumbai 4.1.2 However, the Assessing Officer rejecting the above contention of the appellant had made addition by holding that failure of appellant to comply with the direction of RBI amounts to offence under Clause-(i) of subsection (4) of Section 46 of Banking Regulation Act, 1964. 4.2 CSR Expenses : ii) During the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the appellant incurred the expenditure of Rs. 11,84,18,000/- on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It was claimed before the assessing authority that the assessee bank has been spending money on CSR Expenditure voluntarily before the provisions of Companies Act 2013 came into effect. It was claimed that the expenses were incurred in the vicinity of the places, where the branches of bank are located in order to promote his business interest and therefore, the provisions of Explanation-2 to section 37 of the Income Tax Act, have no application; Placing reliance on following decisions : i) Infosys Technologies Ltd [2014] 360 ITR 714 (Kar) ii) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd., [2020] 422 ITR 164 (Guj) iii) Easter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions and the circulars on Educational Loan Schemes etc. It was submitted that the penalty was levied based on the deficiency in regulatory compliance not upon the validity of the any transaction or agreement entered into by appellant bank with its customers. It is submitted that the penalty was not levied for infraction of any law and therefore not covered by Explanation 2 to section 37 of the Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions : i) CIT Vs. The Stock and Bond Trading Company 2011 (10) TMI 172 - Bombay High Court. ii) DCIT Vs. Bapunagar Mahila Co-Op Bank Ltd., - 2015 (7) TMI 472 - ITAT Ahmedabad iii) IDBI Bank Ltd vs. DCIT - 2021 (2) TMI 608 - ITAT Mumbai iv) ADIT vs. DBS Bank Limited - 20108 (6) TMI 757 - ITAT Mumbai 9. On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) submits that the penalty was levied for contravention of the directions issued by RBI which shall be punishable with fine in terms of provisions of section 46 of Banking Regulation Act. The ld.CIT(DR) took us through the relevant provisions of Banking Regulation Act. 10. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) of the Act. 14. Even on appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the disallowance was confirmed following the decision of Tribunal in the appellant in own case for the A.Y.2015-16 to 2017-18 ITA No. 1120 & 1121/CHNY/2019 & ITA No. 672/CHNY/2020. 15. Being aggrieved, the appeal is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The ld.Counsel submits that the appellant bank had incurred the expenditure of CSR even prior to the enactment of provisions the Companies Act, 2013. The expenditure is involved in the vicinity of the locations, where the branches of the appellant banks are situated. The expenditure incurred under CSR helps in promoting the goodwill, business of the appellant bank. He further submits that this expenditure is incurred over and above the amount required to be incurred under statutory obligation under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. He further submits that the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in earlier years for A.Y.2015-16 to 2017-18 has been appealed before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The Hon'ble Madras High Court admitted the appeal on the following question of law : "(i) Whether in facts and the circumstances of the case given the manner in whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of recovery from bad debts written off from rural branches of Rs. 1,82,00,000/-, it is submitted that the appellant bank had written off bad debts of rural branches in earlier assessment years. In the year of write-off of the bad debts, no claim was made for deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act, the same was adjusted against the credit balance in the provision of amount credited u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. Since no deduction was claimed u/s.36(1)(vii) in respect of write-off of the amount, the amount recovered cannot be taxed under the provisions of Section 41(4) of the Act. This claim was made for the first time before the ld.CIT(A), however, the ld.CIT(A) refused to adjudicate this ground of appeal placing the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). 22. The ld.AR submits that merely because assessee wrongly included partial income in the Return of Income. It cannot confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to tax that income in that year even though the income is not taxable and the appellant cannot be barred from raising the claim for the first time before he appellate authorities. 23. On the othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be traded by the banks to other who are short fall in the lending to the priority section. This trading is carried on through e-Kuber platform of the RBI. It is submitted that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant bank sold PSLC and earned income from the same to the extent of Rs. 22,65,75,000/-. In the Return of Income, filed by the appellant bank the same was offered to tax, however, the appellant bank was advised that same was in the nature of capital receipt, akin to Carbon Credit and he also submits that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Areva T & D India Ltd [2020] 428 ITR 1 (Mad) in Tax Appeal No.673 of 2018. vide order dated 08.09.2020 held that income from sale of carbon credit is a capital receipt and not liable to tax. Based on the decision, the appellant bank raised this ground of appeal for the first time before this Tribunal. Further, the ld.Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Areva T & D India Ltd [2020] 428 ITR 1 (Mad) in Tax Appeal No.673 of 2018. In support of the proposition that an assessee can raise a particular ground of a....