9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd . . [ 2014 (3) TMI 110 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that amortisation of premium paid on acquisition of securities when the same are acquired at the rate higher than the face value. Such amortisation would have to be for the remaining period of maturity. This precisely the Tribunal had directed in the impugned order. Though contended, no contrary instructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l ) in ITA No.2124/Ahd/2016 by proposing the following question, stated to be a substantial question of law; Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on the issue of disallowance of Amortized Premium amounting to ₹ 2,10,11,715/? 2. In this case, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truction No.17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008, investments of banks classified under HTM (Held to Maturity) category need not be marked to market and are carried at acquisition cost unless these are more than the face value, in which case, the premium should be amortized over the period remaining to maturity. 3. The revenue challenged the order passed by Commissioner by way of an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rate higher than the face value. Such amortisation would have to be for the remaining period of maturity. This precisely the Tribunal had directed in the impugned order. Though contended, no contrary instructions of CBDT are brought to our notice. The instruction in question having been issued under section 119(2) of the Incometax Act, 1961, would bind the Revenue. No question of law, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
