9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rning the same assessee in respect of an earlier assessment year that the investment held by it is stock-in-trade. It now wants to contend to the contrary and claim that investment made by the assessee-bank is not stock-in-trade. The contention of the Revenue with regard to the nature of the investment made by the bank was examined in an elaborate order made by a Bench of this court in Tax Cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rve or holding the money in investments. This court also in the course of the order made in the earlier tax case, referred with approval to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 421 and after referring to the Full Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Madras Central Urban, Bank Ltd., AIR 1929 Mad 387, noticed the fact that the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the investment was permissible, as the assessee had the option of valuing the investment at cost or at market price. The fact that the assessee had adopted the cost price in earlier years, but chose to change that mode of valuation to the market price was not in any way contrary to the requirements of the Act. No exception could have been taken to that finding of the Tribunal. The Revenue, howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t express our strong disapproval of the manner in which the Revenue is seeking to have references made taking contradictory stands in respect of the same assessee, in spite of the fact its contention to the contrary had been upheld by this court on the earlier occasion and, thereafter, seeking to raise an entirely contradictory argument and seeking reference of such a question as well. The tax c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
