9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal concurrently held that the respondent bank would also be a scheduled bank and consequently allowed the bad debts under section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act. Such being the position, we find no error in the view. No question of law arises. Disallowance of the deduction of Amortized Government Security Premium - Held that:- Similar question came up for consideration of before this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJKOT II VERSUS RAJKOT DIST. CO-OP BANK LTD. C/O. AD. VYAS AND CO.[2014 (3) TMI 110 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as held as per the directives, the assessee had to invest certain amounts in Government securities and to hold the same till maturity - In the process of acquisition, if there was any premium paid on the face value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the name of the assessee bank was not reflected in the second schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, as on date of assessment? [ B] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting of disallowance of deduction of bad debts of ₹ 2,57,35,327/u/ s 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act? [ C] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting of disallowing deduction of Amortized Government Security Premium of ₹ 1,41,76,000/? [ D] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in rejecting addition of ₹ 21,48,000/on account of accrued inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ror in overruling the decision of the CIT (Appeals), who had given detailed reasons. He submitted that the investment was in the nature of capital investment in the hands of the assessee as held by the CIT (Appeals). The CBDT Circular dated November 26, 2008 would not apply. There were further instructions which would govern the situation. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Tushar Hemani for the respondent placed heavy reliance on the said CBDT Circular dated November 26, 2008 and contended that the benefit of amortisation had to be granted. The assessee as a cooperative bank was bound by the RBI directives. As per such directives, the assessee had to invest certain amounts in Government securities and to hold the same til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
