9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act. The bank was consistently adopting the above method of valuation of security as per the RBI Guideline. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years [2011 (5) TMI 988 - ITAT COCHIN] by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Reported [2002 (11) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT] had held that the depreciation on investment which are `Held to Maturity’ and forming part of stock-in-trade is entitled to claim the same as a deduction. - decided against revenue - ITA No.503/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 And ITA No.504/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2017 - Shri Abraham P.George And Shri George George K, JJ. Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad with guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India relied on by the Assessing Officer. 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the CIT (A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed off. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follow:- 4.1 The assessee is a company engaged in banking business. For the assessment year 2010-2011 assessment u/s 143(3) was completed vide order dated 28.03.2013. In the assessment completed, the Assessing Officer had disallowed depreciation on Held to Maturity (HTM) categories of investments amounting to ₹ 84,31,34,267. 4.2 For assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against stock-in-trade, so that there is no requirement to mark it to market. The same are required to be stated at acquisition cost, except where it is in excess of the face value, in which case the excess is to be written off over the term of the security. The AO invoked a circular by the CBDT as well as the relevant instruction by the RBI (Circular No.DBOD PB.BC.32/21.04.048/2000-01 dated 16/10/2000) for the purpose. In appeal, the assessee was able to secure a favourable Verdict in view of the like decision by the tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2000-01 (in ITA No.1031/Coch/2004 dated 28/9/2006). Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 30. The Revenue before us has not been able to point out any infirmity in the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of CIT v. ING Vysya Bank Ltd. [(2013) 356 ITR 532 (Kar.). 4.6 The learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various orders of the Tribunal, which are cateloged in the impugned orders of the CIT(A). It was further submitted by the learned AR that the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 (supra) has not been reversed by the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. 5. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee-bank had treated securities which are HTM as current assets / stock-in-trade. The value of the current assets / sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
