9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether interest pertaining to the previous year reversed during the current year on NPAs identified as NPAs for the first time during the financial year 1998-99 is allowable as a deduction. 2. Whether broken period interest paid on the purchase of securities is revenue expenditure since the securities constitute stock-in-trade. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deduction of Interest on NPAs (Assessment Year 1999-2000) The primary question was whether the interest income from the previous year, which was reversed in the current year due to the identification of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs), is allowable as a deduction. The assessee argued that as per the RBI guidelines, interest on NPAs should not be recognized as income. Therefore, the interest that was previously shown as income was reversed in the subsequent year when the NPAs were identified. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rejected this claim, stating that the income of the preceding year does not qualify as an expenditure for the current year's interest income. They relied on the ITAT Jaipur Bench's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. IAC, which held that income computation must follow the Income-tax Act, not RBI guidelines. The assessee's counsel argued that according to RBI norms, interest on NPAs should not be treated as accrued, and thus, the reversal of such interest should be allowed as a deduction. The counsel cited several cases, including TCI Finance Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT and Bank of Madura Ltd. v. CIT, to support the argument that reversal entries should be accepted for deduction. The Tribunal, however, held that the Income-tax Act is a self-contained code, and deductions must be explicitly provided for within the Act. The Tribunal noted that while non-recognition of income by following RBI norms is permissible, the reversal of previously recognized income is not allowed unless treated as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim for deduction by reversal of interest income was not permissible under the law. Issue 2: Broken Period Interest on Securities (Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000) The second issue was whether the broken period interest paid on the purchase of securities, which were held as stock-in-trade, is allowable as revenue expenditure. The assessee argued that since the securities were purchased as stock-in-trade, the broken period interest should be deductible under section 37 of the Act. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had rejected this claim, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl CIT, which suggested that such interest should be capitalized. The assessee's counsel contended that the CBDT had clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank Ltd. did not directly address whether securities constitute stock-in-trade or capital assets. The counsel cited the Kerala High Court's decision in CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd., which allowed the deduction of broken period interest for securities held as stock-in-trade. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the tax authorities did not dispute that the securities were held as stock-in-trade. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank Ltd. as not addressing the specific issue of stock-in-trade versus capital assets. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Act, in line with the Kerala High Court's decision. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. It permitted the deduction of broken period interest on securities held as stock-in-trade but rejected the claim for deduction of reversed interest income on NPAs.
|
