9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 213 - AT - Income TaxDeduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36 (1) (vii) - HELD THAT - Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in Assessee's own case 2020 (1) TMI 995 - ITAT BANGALORE we hold that the AO was justified in disallowing the claim for deduction on account of provisions for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act as admittedly the Assessee did not debit its profit and loss account any sum towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. We therefore restore the order of the AO - Decided against assessee Depreciation on investments held to maturity as stock in trade - HELD THAT - As decided in THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MANGALORE 2013 (7) TMI 656 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT order passed by the authorities balding that in view of the RBI guidelines, the assessee is stopped from treating the investment as stock-in-trade is not correct That finding recorded by the authorities is hereby set aside. Disallowance stale drafts and pay orders u/s 41 (1) - assessee purchased these and had not claimed/encashed them - AO was of the opinion that the said amount which remained unclaimed in the hands of assessee was profit chargeable to tax under section 41 (1) - HELD THAT - As decided in own case the amounts represented credit balances in the name of the trading parties and was taken to its P L a/c. The CIT(A) held that these amounts were not revenue receipts but were of capital nature. The provisions of s. 41(1) were not attracted in the facts of this case because he assessee s liability to pay back the amounts to its customers had not ceased. Ground raised by revenue stands dismissed. Disallowance of interest expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT - As DR submitted that, for assessment year 2007-08, there is no finding of Ld.AO regarding collection of form 15 G/H by assessee. We therefore, direct assessee to submit evidences of form 15 G/H having collected before Ld. AO. AO shall grant relief to assessee as directed by this Tribunal in the subsequent assessment years reproduced hereinabove. Accordingly, these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for bad and doubtful debts. 2. Depreciation on investments held to maturity. 3. Taxability of stale drafts under Section 41(1). 4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest payments. 5. Validity of reassessment order under Section 147. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for Bad and Doubtful Debts: The assessee, a rural bank, claimed a deduction for bad and doubtful debts amounting to ?228.48 crores. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessee by previous orders for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The Tribunal reiterated that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is only allowable to the extent that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is actually debited to the profit and loss account. Since the assessee did not debit any amount towards this provision, the Tribunal upheld the AO’s disallowance of the deduction. 2. Depreciation on Investments Held to Maturity: The issue of depreciation on investments held to maturity (HTM) was also discussed. The Tribunal noted that this issue was previously decided in favor of the assessee for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. It was held that investments classified as HTM should be treated as stock-in-trade and valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower. The Tribunal cited the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. CIT, which supported this view. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the deduction for depreciation on HTM investments. 3. Taxability of Stale Drafts under Section 41(1): The AO had added ?13.76 lakhs to the assessee’s income, considering it as profit chargeable to tax under Section 41(1) due to stale drafts. The Tribunal referred to its earlier orders and the Karnataka High Court’s decision, which clarified that unclaimed amounts like stale drafts do not constitute a trading liability or expenditure and hence cannot be taxed under Section 41(1). The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, following the precedent set in the assessee’s own case for earlier years. 4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS on Interest Payments: The assessee contested the disallowance of ?27.80 crores under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest payments. The Tribunal noted that this issue was covered in favor of the assessee by previous orders for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. It was held that no disallowance can be made if the assessee had obtained Form 15G/H from the payees, even if these forms were not submitted to the prescribed authority. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the collection of Form 15G/H and grant relief accordingly. 5. Validity of Reassessment Order under Section 147: The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment order passed under Section 147. However, since the Tribunal decided the issues on merits, this ground was considered academic and was not adjudicated. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, affirming the disallowance of the deduction for bad and doubtful debts and the deletion of the addition for stale drafts. It upheld the depreciation on HTM investments and directed the AO to verify the collection of Form 15G/H for interest payments to grant relief under Section 40(a)(ia). The additional ground regarding the reassessment order was not adjudicated as it became academic.
|
