9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 396 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - sufficiency of own funds - HELD THAT - Respectfully following the above finding in own case of the assessee 2021 (10) TMI 1330 - ITAT AHMEDABAD we hereby hold that there would be no disallowances of interest expenses u/s 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule as the assessee was having sufficient interest free own fund against the investment - However with respect to disallowances of administrative expenses under rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules, we inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for to demonstrate the basis of suo moto disallowance. Therefore, the issue to the extent of disallowances of administrative expenses is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provision of law. Thus the ground of Revenue s appeal is hereby dismissed whereas ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Addition of commission income from the bank guarantee furnished to the customers - HELD THAT - It is important to note that the assessee is paying the taxes at the maximum marginal rate and there is no allegation by the Revenue that the income of the assessee by changing the accounting policy has not been offered to tax - the income of 1 year has been postponed to the another year in the manner and for the reasons as discussed above. In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we set aside the finding of the ld. CIT-A and direct the AO to delete the addition made by the AO. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Addition being the amount of interest on the sticky advances under rule 6EA read with section 43D of the Act - HELD THAT - We hold that there cannot be any addition to the total income of the assessee by way of interest with respect to the loans and advances which were overdue for 3 months. Thus we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance on account of lease operating expenses - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the accounting standard issued by the ICAI are mandatory to be followed by the assessee under the Companies Act. But the question arises, such accounting standards should also be followed while working out the income under the provisions of the income tax Act. So far, the Income Tax Act has not notified the accounting standard 19 issued by the ICAI, though mandatory for the assessee to follow while preparing its books of accounts, but this is not the same under the Income Tax Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Deduction on account of ESOP - HELD THAT - The assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2014-15 was in appeal before this tribunal 2021 (10) TMI 1330 - ITAT AHMEDABAD where the issue was set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly the learned AR for the assessee before us contended that the issue for the year under consideration should also be set aside to the file of the AO fresh adjudication as per law - after hearing both the parties we hereby set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provision of the law. Hence the ground of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. Deduction on account of education, secondary and higher education cess - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited. 1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT - Since the claim of the assessee is purely legal claim and entire facts are available on record. Thus it is not justified in not admitting the purely legal ground raised by the assessee for the first time. As the assessee has not claimed deduction of education cess and secondary higher education cess before the lower authorities, they have not got opportunity to examine the same as per the provisions of Act, thus In the interest of justice, these grounds are restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to examine assessee's eligibility to claim of deduction of the items raised in the additional grounds of appeal de novo/ afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Interest expenses incurred in respect of capital work in progress - whether any interest-bearing fund has been utilized in such work in progress? - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2021 (10) TMI 1330 - ITAT AHMEDABAD admittedly own fund of the assessee exceeds the amount of capital work-in-progress. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn that the own fund of the assessee was utilised in such capital work in progress. Accordingly, there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest expenses. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Bank guarantee commission. 3. Interest on Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). 4. Operating expenditure on leases. 5. Employee Stock Option (ESOP) cost. 6. Deduction of education cess and secondary and higher education cess. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee, a scheduled bank, earned exempt income and made a suo-moto disallowance under section 14A. The AO found the disallowance insufficient and applied Rule 8D, resulting in a higher disallowance. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of administrative expenses but deleted the interest expenses disallowance. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decision, ruled that no disallowance of interest expenses was warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to justify the basis of suo-moto disallowance for administrative expenses, thereby setting aside this issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. 2. Bank guarantee commission: The assessee changed its policy from recognizing commission income upfront to spreading it over the guarantee period. The AO added the entire commission income to the total income, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, held that the change in accounting policy was justified and aligned with the matching concept, recognizing income over the period of risk. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, allowing the assessee's appeal. 3. Interest on Non-Performing Assets (NPAs): The assessee did not recognize interest on NPAs overdue for more than three months but less than six months, following RBI guidelines. The AO added this interest to the income, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decision and judicial precedents, held that interest on NPAs should not be recognized on an accrual basis but on a receipt basis, aligning with RBI guidelines. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, allowing the assessee's appeal. 4. Operating expenditure on leases: The assessee claimed lease expenses on a straight-line method as per AS-19, resulting in higher initial deductions. The AO disallowed this, stating it did not match the income recognition principles under the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decision, agreed that the lease expenses should be recognized on an accrual basis and not on a straight-line method, dismissing the assessee's appeal. 5. Employee Stock Option (ESOP) cost: The CIT(A) disallowed the ESOP cost claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the issue for the earlier year was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication as per the law, allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. 6. Deduction of education cess and secondary and higher education cess: The assessee raised an additional ground for the deduction of education cess and secondary and higher education cess. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, admitted the additional ground for adjudication. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the assessee's eligibility for the deduction afresh, allowing the additional ground for statistical purposes. Appeal by Revenue: The Revenue's appeal included issues on disallowance under section 14A, annual technical service fees, and interest on capital work in progress. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, referencing its earlier decisions and judicial precedents, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, directing fresh adjudication on specific issues by the AO.
|
