9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For The Appellant : Shri Hem Chhajed, AR For The Respondent : Shri Pradeep Kumar Majumdar,Sr.DR ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: These two captioned appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XI, Ahmedabad [ CIT(A) in short] dated 28/08/2012 and 06/06/2013 pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 2010-11 respectively. These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No2358Ahd2012 AY 200910 2. The solitary ground of appeal raised by the Assessee reads as under:- The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding disallowance made by Ld.A.O. of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Held for Trading (HFT) and Available for Sale (AFS) as per Reserve Bank of India s instructions by making corresponding increase in Investment Depreciation Reserve Account . It was contended that the AO has wrongly denied the claim of the assessee in ignorance of the true spirit of CBDT s instruction No.17/2008 dated 26/11/2008. The Ld.AR submitted that the RBI mandatorily requires the Bank to classify the investment in government securities under the category; namely Held for Trading (HFT) ; Available for Sale (AFS) and Held for Maturity (HTM) . It was submitted that the assessee being a bank is required to prepare its balance-sheet as per the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. The balance-sheet format is thus prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. 8.1. The relevant operative of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.2703/Ahd/2011 for AY 2008-09 as relied upon by the assessee is reproduced hereunder:- 8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts of the case. Assessee has sold government securities and met net loss of ₹ 3,28,78,600/- after adjustment of profit of ₹ 5.35,800/- and premium on purchase of securities of ₹ 11,01,000/- total amounting to ₹ 3.39,79,600/-. Guidelines of RBI as well as CBDT Circular No.665 dated 5.10.1993 have been elaborately discussed in the order of CIT(A) and relevant extract of the same have been reproduced above in our order. As per RBI guidelines securities purchased by the primary urban co-op, banks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CBDT wherein, at para vi. It has been clearly stated that in the case of HFT and AFS Securities of the Bank, the depreciation and appreciation to be aggregated script wise and only depreciation, if any, is required to be provided in the accounts. 13. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the action of lower authorities for disallowing loss arose on the year end revaluation of securities. Our view is supported by decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 226 Taxman 132/49 taxmann.com 335, United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SO. Investment Ltd, vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SO and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334/129 Taxman 716 (Bom). Respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
