9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off by this consolidated order. 3. Identical grounds are raised in both the appeals, except for the variance in figures. Hence, grounds pertaining to ITA No.503/Coch/2016 concerning assessment year 2010-2011 is reproduced below:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in ITA No.25/2013-14 dated 07.11.2016 for the Assessment year 2010-11 is erroneous in law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,31,34,267/- on account of depreciation claimed on HTM category investments. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have noticed that the Assessing Officer has correctly disallowed the claim of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 reads as follow:- "8. The next issue is regarding the depreciation on Held to Maturity (HTM) category of investments. It is seen that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi Bench has decided this issue in favour of the appellant in their own case for the assessment year 2005-06 vide ITA NO.1003/COCH/2008 dated 31/5/2011, for assessment year 2006-07 vide ITA NO.65/COCH/2009 dated 30/6/2011 and for assessment year 2007-08 vide ITA NO.208/COCH/2014 dated 24/12/2014. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in the assessee's case for AY 2000-01, the same is binding on the tribunal, so that it was incumbent for the Revenue to exhibit the inapplicability of the said decision if it were to secure a favourable from, or any modification/ variation from its earlier decision by, the tribunal. The same, in fact, and for the same reasons, represents the consistent view of the tribunal (refer: Dy. CIT v. Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT, in ITA No. 718/ Coch/2008 dated 17/9/2010 for AY 2006-07). We decide accordingly dismissing the Revenue's ground." 9. Respectfully following the above orders of the ITAT, Kochi Bench in assessee's own case, I hereby delete the addition made on depreciation on HTM investments of Rs. 84,31,34,267/-." 4.4 Aggriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra) by following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Reported in 264 ITR 545 (Kar) 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. The CIT(A) had followed the orders of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, for Asst.Years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 (supra). No judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has been brought to our notice reversing the orders of ITAT in assessee's own case for Asst.Years 2005- 2006 to 2007-2008 (supra). Hence, we see no reason to deviate from the findings of the co-ordinate Bench orders of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2005-2006 to 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
