2015 (9) TMI 643 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance made u/s 14A - Held that - Even though the assessee has contended that it has used only its own funds for making the investments, in our view, the availability of own funds on the date of making investments needs to be verified. Admittedly, the facts relating thereto are not available on record. Since full facts which are required to be considered in order to properly appreciate various contentions of the assessee are not available before us, the bench suggested that this issue may be set aside to the file of the assessing officer in order to enable him to examine this issue afresh. Both the parties agreed to the same. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue in all the three years and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of amortization of premium paid on HTM (Held To Maturity) investments - Held that - The loss arising on amortization of premium on investments held to maturity has been held to be deductible in the assessee s own case by Hon ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court and the decision of the High Court is reported as CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd in (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). Since this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court and since the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) in all the three years is in accordance with the decision of jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on this issue - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of broken period interest - Held that - This issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the assessee s own case (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). By following the said decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance of broken period interest made in AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. Accordingly, the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue in AY 2009-10 is confirmed and the order passed by him on this issue in AY 2010-11 is set aside.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance made u/s 36(1)(viia) - Held that - We have earlier noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has allowed deduction only in respect of those branches, where there is no doubt about their classification as rural branches . In respect of other branches, no fresh material was placed to contradict the findings given by Ld CIT(A).. In the appeal filed by the revenue, it is contended that the assessee has withdrawn the claim and hence the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claim. We have earlier noticed that the assessee, indeed, filed a letter withdrawing the claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act and making additional claim of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However, subsequently the assessee has withdrawn its earlier letter during the course of assessment proceeding before finalization of the assessment. Hence, the withdrawal letter given by the assessee, in our view, should not be taken cognizance of. Accordingly, we do not find merit in the said ground of the revenue.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of amortization of premium paid on Held To Maturity investments.
3. Disallowance of broken period interest.
4. Disallowance made under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals were against orders passed by the Ld CIT(A) regarding disallowances made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The main contention was whether the disallowance under Rule 8D was applicable for those years. The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Rule 8D were applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards. However, due to lack of complete facts, the issue was remanded back to the assessing officer for fresh examination considering various contentions and case laws presented by the assessee.

2. The next issue concerned the disallowance of amortization of premium paid on Held To Maturity investments. The Tribunal relied on a decision by the jurisdictional High Court and upheld the order of the Ld CIT(A) in favor of the assessee for all three years, as it was in line with the High Court's decision.

3. The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of broken period interest, which was decided in favor of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court. The AO was directed to delete the disallowance made in the relevant assessment years based on the High Court's decision.

4. The final issue related to the disallowance made under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessing officer disallowed the claim based on rural branch classification. The Ld CIT(A) allowed the deduction only for branches falling under a specific category. The Tribunal found no fault with the Ld CIT(A)'s reasoning and upheld the decision regarding the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's contention regarding the withdrawal of the claim by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for two assessment years and partly allowed the appeal for the third year. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, and the decision was pronounced on 12.11.2014.