OK, I very possibly might have made a stupid error in the following assumption (please verify if I can do this!): I can re-interpret the problem (using the musical isomorphism) as $V$ being the diagonal embedding of $TM$ inside $TM\oplus TM$ and studying spin structures on them.
If the above re-intepretation is valid, then I think the answer is no:
I will restrict to $\dim M=3$, in which case our (closed oriented) manifold is always spinnable. A spin structure $\mathfrak{s}$ on $M$ induces a canonical spin structure $\mathfrak{S}_0=\mathfrak{s}\oplus\mathfrak{s}$ on $TM\oplus TM$, and this is actually independent of the choice of $\mathfrak{s}$ (these appear in the notion of a 2-framing on 3-manifolds, which Atiyah and Witten have used for some of their QFT studies). As a result, the "restriction" $\mathfrak{S}_0|_V$ on $M$ is ill-defined.
Am I misunderstanding what the restriction map is? This also implies that the "restriction" to each $TM$-summand is ill-defined. I don't see how it can make sense to even define restriction unless the subbundle is of the form $TN\oplus TN$ for a submanifold $N\subset M$. (In particular, the collar-neighborhood theorem does allow an induced spin structure on $T(\partial X$) from a spin structure on $TX$ thanks to the splitting $TX|_\partial=T(\partial X)\oplus\underline{\mathbb{R}}$ near the boundary.)