ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 781/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 August 2019AY 2013-1420 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) based on the availability of own funds exceeding investments. It also affirmed the deletion of ESOP expenses and bad debts, following previous decisions and Supreme Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances made under Section 14A, including interest expenses and ESOP expenses. The assessee, a banking company, had challenged these additions made during scrutiny assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when the assessee has sufficient own funds, and the allowability of ESOP expenses and bad debts for a banking company.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 36(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(24)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “H”,

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri B. Srinivas, CIT-DR
For Respondent: Shri FV Irani / Chetan Kaka-ARs
1.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd 1929/M/12, 3491, 3592, 3593, 6394, 6217/M/2013 2. DCIT vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd ITA No.2817/M/16 & 38/M/18 3. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT 343 ITR 270(SC) 4. CIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd 349 ITR 705 (SC), 25 taxmann.com 235 5. DCIT vs Union Bank of India ITA No.4678/Mum/2013 6. DCIT vs UCO Bank ITA No.197/Kol/2011 7. Central Bank of India vs DCIT ITA No.7428, 7485/M/2016 DCIT vs. Union Bank of India ITA No.2142, 1627/M/2014 8. 22. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The AO made disallowance as we have noted in para 20 above.

The ld CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by following the order of his predecessor in appeal for AY 2010-11date 04.02.2013, for AY 2011-12 dated 20.08.2013 and AY 2012-13 dated 19.01.2016. We have further noted that coordinate bench of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal for AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs DCIT in ITA(s) No. 1657, 1929/M/12, 3491, 3592, 3593, 6394, 6217/M/2013 & in DCIT Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & 38/M/18 confirmed the action of ld CIT(A). The Tribunal while confirming the order of ld CIT(A) followed the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT 343 ITR 270(SC) and in CIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd 349 ITR 705 order passed by ld CIT(A), which we affirms. In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed.

23.

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. – AY 2014-15 24. In this appeal for AY 2014-15, the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. "On the facts and In the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) ignoring the facts brought out in the assessment order that expenses of Rs.504.53 Crores were attributable to earning of exempt income.

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to compute the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) on the insvestment excluding investment of Rs.385.05 crores as on 31.03.2O13 and Rs.459.19 crores as on 31.O3.2O14 and investment in Foreign company as on O1.O4.2O13 at Rs.33,31 lakhs and as on 31.O3.2O13 at Rs.33.31 lakhs relying on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. (65 SOT 83) without appreciating the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITA T has not been accepted by the department and appeal has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court.

3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the broken period interest is allowable on the matching principles, without realizing that the same has not been incurred for realizing the interest on securities as enunciated by the Apex court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. (57 Taxman 152) (SC).

4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow expenditure incurred on ESOP, after verification in accordance with the principle laid down by Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of Biocon Ltd. (368/Bang/2010) without appreciating that the same is not an ascertained liability, contingent in 20 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd nature, quantum cannot be worked out precisely and is capital in nature and hence not allowable.” 25. We have seen that all the grounds of appeal raised in this appeal are identical as raised in appeal for assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, following the principles of consistency, the decision arrived at therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also.

26.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27-08-2019.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →