THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S CORPORATION BANK

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

ITA NO. 140 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ATVARA, MANGALORE

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2 (1), MANGALORE ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND: M/S CORPORATION BANK HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.88, MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE-575 001 PAN:AAACC7245E …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.BALRAM R RAO, ADVOCATE)

2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.496/BANG/2010 FOR A.Y.2006-07.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the assessee. It was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition representing excess claim of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act,

3 exceeding the credit balance of the provision made under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this section did not permit such an action?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that depreciation on valuation of investment portfolio is allowable by treating the investments held by the assessee bank as stock-in-trade once the RBI Master Circular read with CBDT Circular No.665 came into force?”

When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the substantial question of law has been answered by a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed in ITA No.256/2011. It is further submitted that second substantial question of law is answered by a

4 bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.01.2020 in ITA No.18/2014.

In view of the aforesaid submission the substantial questions of law are answered in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BVK

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK