2012 (4) TMI 664 - AT - Income Tax

2016 (5) TMI 1005 - AT

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance u/s 14A
2. Deletion of penalty paid to RBI
3. Addition of tax-free income from MSTDC Bonds
4. Depreciation on value of investment
5. Deletion of un-reconciled inter-branch entries written off
6. Deduction of ineligible debts relating to leased assets written off
7. Depreciation on computer peripherals
8. Interest on income-tax refund
9. Treating capital gains as business income
10. Higher rate of depreciation on UPS, Printers, and other computer peripherals
11. Computation of profits and gains from securities
12. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(vii)
13. Addition u/s 43B of provision for leave encashment
14. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Summary:

1. Disallowance u/s 14A:
The Assessing Officer disallowed interest on borrowed capital and managerial expenses totaling Rs. 4.10 crores. The CIT (A) deleted the amount based on earlier years' orders. The matter was remitted back to the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication in line with the decision in the assessment year 2002-03.

2. Deletion of Penalty Paid to RBI:
The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 5 lakhs paid to RBI, considering it a technical violation and not a penalty. The Revenue's contention was rejected, and the CIT (A)'s order was upheld based on the Kerala High Court decision in The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 265 ITR 177.

3. Addition of Tax-Free Income from MSTDC Bonds:
The CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs. 23 lakhs from MSTDC Bonds, treating it as tax-free under section 10(23G). The decision was upheld based on earlier years' findings and the existence of a notification under section 10(23G).

4. Depreciation on Value of Investment:
The CIT (A) allowed the depreciation claim on investments, treating them as stock in trade, following the decision in CIT vs. Nedungadi Bank Ltd 264 ITR 545. The ITAT upheld this decision based on earlier years' rulings.

5. Deletion of Un-Reconciled Inter-Branch Entries Written Off:
The CIT (A) allowed the write-off of Rs. 61.82 lakhs as per RBI guidelines. The ITAT upheld this decision, confirming no double claim was made by the assessee.

6. Deduction of Ineligible Debts Relating to Leased Assets Written Off:
The CIT (A) allowed the write-off of Rs. 230.24 lakhs as per RBI guidelines. The matter was remitted back to the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication to determine the nature of the amount and consider the bad debt claim as per the law.

7. Depreciation on Computer Peripherals:
The CIT (A) allowed depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals, following the decision in the case of DY CIT v Datacraft India Ltd (2010) 40 SOT 295. The ITAT upheld this decision.

8. Interest on Income-Tax Refund:
The CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs. 119.31 lakhs as interest on income-tax refund. The ITAT reversed this decision, restoring the Assessing Officer's addition, with the assessee allowed to claim reduction if any amount is subsequently withdrawn.

9. Treating Capital Gains as Business Income:
The CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to treat gains on securities as capital gains. The ITAT reversed this decision, treating the gains as business income consistent with the stand taken in assessment year 2002-03.

10. Higher Rate of Depreciation on UPS, Printers, and Other Computer Peripherals:
The CIT (A) allowed higher depreciation at 60% on UPS, Printers, and other computer peripherals. The ITAT upheld this decision.

11. Computation of Profits and Gains from Securities:
The CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the computation of income from securities. The ITAT upheld this direction for factual verification.

12. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(vii):
The CIT (A) allowed the deduction of Rs. 635.31 lakhs under section 36(1)(vii). The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication in line with the directions given in assessment year 2002-03.

13. Addition u/s 43B of Provision for Leave Encashment:
The CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the amount actually paid under section 43B before the due date of filing the return. The ITAT upheld this direction.

14. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c):
The CIT (A) deleted the penalty of Rs. 6,13,40,500/- levied under section 271(1)(c) on various disallowances. The ITAT upheld this decision, considering the issues debatable and the claims genuinely made by a public limited bank.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 476 and 581 were partly allowed, and the appeal in ITA No. 716/Coch/2007 was dismissed.

← Previous Next →