33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.

356 ITR 549High Court2013#1797 most cited

What is 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. authority for?

Depreciation on investments classified as 'Held to Maturity' or 'Available for Sale' is allowable as a deduction. Such depreciation is not restricted by the nature of the investment category.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Karnataka Bank Ltd v ACIT · 356 ITR 549 · depreciation on investments · Held to Maturity · Available for Sale · allowable deduction · diminution in value

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 211section 115jb(2)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(vii)mercantile system of accountingbook profitssection 115jbsection 115jdisallowance u/s 14asection 36(1)section 36section 14a

Judgments citing 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/165/2024HC Karnataka21 Aug 2025

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 145Section 260

…her submitted that the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal have already been answered by this Court in favour of the assessee in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(1) reported in [2013] 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka), relating to the Assessment Year 2004-05. 5. Sri M. Thirumalesh, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, submits that the assessee has claimed a deduction for diminution in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:3261…

Nagar Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.208/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nagar Urban Co-op Bank Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Post Box No. 7 Centra, Ahmednagar Circle Maharashtra-414001 Vs. PAN : AAAAN0509L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 08-01-2025 Date of 08-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank

ITA/193/2024HC Delhi06 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

…ITA 193/2024 Page 1 of 13 $~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 06.12.2024 + ITA 193/2024 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Rai, SSC, Mr Ashvini Kumar and Mr Rishabh Nangia, SCs and Mr Nikhil Jain, Advocate. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .....Respondent Through: Mr S Krishnan and Mr Harshit Chauhan, Advocates. CORAM:…

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ve for the assessee submitted that it was only after considering its own decision in the case of ING Vysya Bank (supra) that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Karnataka Bank Vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Kar). Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the investments of the bank are stock in trade and are to be valued at lower of cost or market value and the resultant depreciation is an allowable deduction. The learned Authorised Representa…

M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ve for the assessee submitted that it was only after considering its own decision in the case of ING Vysya Bank (supra) that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Karnataka Bank Vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Kar). Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the investments of the bank are stock in trade and are to be valued at lower of cost or market value and the resultant depreciation is an allowable deduction. The learned Authorised Representa…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-07, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 740/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, Ld. CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36

…out appreciating the fact that though the same was done as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, yet the same was not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act”. 25. At page 24 of the paper book the judgment of the Karnataka Bank Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 549 wherein it was held as under: 13 “12. Now we may advert to the second substantial question of law involved in ITA No. 18 of 2014. The aforesaid substantial question of law is squarely covered by Instruction No. 17 of 2008 dated November 26, 2008 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes/RBI and is covered by Clause )vii) provided herein. The d…

The Bharuch Dist.Central Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bharuch

ITA 641/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the d…

The Bharuch Dist.Central Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bharuch

ITA 362/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the d…

Bharuch District Central Co.-Op. Bank Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhaurch Range, Bharuch

ITA 1544/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the d…

Bharuch District Central Co.-Op. Bank Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhaurch Range, Bharuch

ITA 1543/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the d…

Bharuch District Central Co.-Op. Bank Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhaurch Range, Bharuch

ITA 1542/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the d…

The ACIT, Circle-1, Bharuch vs. Bharuch District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Bharuch

ITA 1531/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the d…

The ACIT, Circle-1, Bharuch vs. Bharuch District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Bharuch

ITA 1530/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the d…

The ACIT, Circle-1, Bharuch vs. Bharuch District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Bharuch

ITA 1529/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…09-10-11-12 decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2004) 264 ITR 454 (Kerala), Karnataka bank Vs ACIT (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Karnataka) and United Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 1999)(240 ITR 355-SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the d…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Eluru vs. The Eluru Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Eluru

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 384/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.384/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा / Ay:2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. The Eluru Cooperative Urban Tax, Bank Limited, Circle-1, Eluru. Eluru. Pan: Aaabt 0168 L (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) C.O. No.108/Viz/2019 (In आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.384/Viz/2018) (ननधधारण वषा / Ay :2010-11) The Eluru Cooperative Urban Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Limited, Income Tax, Eluru. Circle-1, Pan: Aaabt 0168 L Eluru. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. SubrahmanyamFor Respondent: Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीऱीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एऱ रेड्डी, न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बाऱाकृष्णन, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.384/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा / AY:2010-11) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. The Eluru Cooperative Urban Tax, Bank Limited, Circle-1, Eluru. Eluru. PAN: AAABT 0168 L (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) C.O. No.108/Viz/2019 (In आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.384/Viz/2018) (ननधधारण वषा / AY…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. M/S. Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2428/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…ent given in the books of account, it is undisputed fact that investments are made only to comply with the regulations of the RBI governing SLR requirement. Even otherwise, the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 356 ITR 549 (Karn) held that circular issued by the RBI for treatment in the books of account is not relevant for classifying the investments whether stock-in-trade or not. In the present case, undisputedly, the assessee-bank has changed its method of accounting by classifying the investments from investments to stock-in-trade. In such a situation, the provi…

Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2400/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…ent given in the books of account, it is undisputed fact that investments are made only to comply with the regulations of the RBI governing SLR requirement. Even otherwise, the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 356 ITR 549 (Karn) held that circular issued by the RBI for treatment in the books of account is not relevant for classifying the investments whether stock-in-trade or not. In the present case, undisputedly, the assessee-bank has changed its method of accounting by classifying the investments from investments to stock-in-trade. In such a situation, the provi…

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2641/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…ent given in the books of account, it is undisputed fact that investments are made only to comply with the regulations of the RBI governing SLR requirement. Even otherwise, the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 356 ITR 549 (Karn) held that circular issued by the RBI for treatment in the books of account is not relevant for classifying the investments whether stock-in-trade or not. In the present case, undisputedly, the assessee-bank has changed its method of accounting by classifying the investments from investments to stock-in-trade. In such a situation, the provi…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1834/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)Section 37(1)(vii)

…ve for the assessee submitted that it was only after considering its own decision in the case of ING Vysya Bank (supra) that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Karnataka Bank Vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Kar). Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the investments of the bank are stock in trade and are to be valued at lower of cost or market value and the resultant depreciation is an allowable deduction. The learned Authorised Representa…

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1812/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 14A

…ut appreciating the fact that though the same was done as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, yet the same was not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act”. 25. At page 24 of the paper book the judgment of the Karnataka Bank Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 549 wherein it was held as under: “12. Now we may advert to the second substantial question of law involved in ITA No. 18 of 2014. The aforesaid substantial question of law is squarely covered by Instruction No. 17 of 2008 dated November 26, 2008 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes/RBI and is covered by Clause )vii) provided herein. The deci…

33 SOT 7 (Bang- Trib), DCIT Vs Karur Vysya Bank (2005) 273 ITR 510 ( Madras), CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (356 ITR 549) — Cited in 63 Judgments | BharatTax