9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the judgments in the cases of 'Nedungadi Bank Ltd.' (2002 (11) TMI 29 - KERALA High Court) and 'Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.' (2010 (10) TMI 860 - Kerala High Court ). It was therefore that the Tribunal reversed the view taken by the Assessing Officer and directed that the notional loss claimed on revaluation of the securities as deduction, be allowed. In our view, since as held by this Court, the R.B.I guidelines are applicable to the cases in question, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, answering the questions of law framed against the Revenue - I.T.A. No. 84 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2015 - Antony Dominic And Shaji P. Chaly, JJ. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee. The main reason stated in the assessment order is that despite seeking clarifications, the assessee did not offer satisfactory clarification nor did the assessee produce any evidence to substantiate their case of devaluation of shares. This was confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner by dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. 3. Further appeals were filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the appeals holding that the principles laid down in the judgments of this Court in the cases of CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. [(2003) 264 ITR 545 (Ker.)] and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [(2011) 339 ITR 606 (Ker.)] are applicable to the facts of the cases. On that basis, the Tribunal held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) the Tribunal is right in law in interfering with the assessment disallowance? (b) is not the order of the Tribunal perverse and invalid? . 4. We heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 5. Although as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, it is true that the assessee had failed to adduce evidence as directed by the Tribunal in the first round of the litigation, the main reason which prevailed upon the Assessing Officer to disallow the deduction when the impugned order was passed after the matter was remanded to him, is his conclusion that the R.B.I guidelines to value the unsecured shares on the basis of yield to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
