THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A No.566 of 2014 DATE: 04.09.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI, Hyderabad.
… Appellant And M/s.Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Warangal.
… Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.566 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (per Sri Sanjay Kumar,J) This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘A’ in relation to the Assessment Year 2007-08.
The following are the suggested questions of law:
(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law, in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing Broken Period interest claimed as expenditure by overlooking the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank Limited (187 ITR 541)?
(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the investments ‘Held To Maturity’ (HTM) be treated as stock in trade and to delete the addition made on account of Amortization of Government Securities?
(c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the expenditure claimed on the provision for staff frauds since such provision is not allowable business expenditure?
(d) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) finding that the interest income did not accrue to the assessee on Non-Performing Assets during the year in spite of specific provisions in Section 43D of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Learned counsel for the Revenue did not press questions (b) and (d) and only advanced arguments on the other two questions.
Perusal of the order under appeal reflects that insofar as the issue of broken period interest is concerned, the Tribunal followed the judgment of this Court in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Commissioner
[1]
of Income Tax and held that it is an allowable deduction. As
regards the deduction towards staff fraud, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Amritsar Bench which, in turn, had followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court. It is not stated before us that the aforesaid decision, which has been followed by the Tribunal, has been appealed against or upset. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal and no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 04.09.2014 va
[1] 151 ITR 703