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 366,339 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.

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1899/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…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 the case of Karnataka Bank (s…

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 915/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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…

Baitarani Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 318/CTK/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…rket valuation. 28. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 29. With regard to Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the appeal, ld A.R. of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd vs ACIT, (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Kar) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: Asse ssment Years : 2 008 -09 & 20 09- 201 0 “The assessee had maintained the accounts in terms of the Reserve Bank of India Regulation and it had shown the securities as investments. But consistently for more than two decades they had been shown as stock-in-trade and depreciatio…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of

ITA 6795/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR
Section 14A

…ble because of transfer of security from category of “available for sale” to “held to maturity”. This issue now no longer survives in view of two decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:-…

The Sri Kannikaparameshwari Co-Op Bank Limited, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Davangere

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1364/BANG/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…capital gain there from is business activity and therefore, this income is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the IT Act, 1961. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vs ACIT 356 ITR 549. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Cocanada 8 ITA No.1364(Bang)2016 Radhaswami Bank Ltd., 57 ITR 306(SC). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Baroda Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd., 280 ITR 282 (Guj.) 13. The ld. DR of…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1020/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N. Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepika Mittal, CIT(DR)
Section 271

…e because of transfer of security from category of “available for sale” to “held to maturity”. This issue now no longer survives in view of two decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited 5 V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as u…

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-07 vs. M/S Oriental Bank of Commerce

ITA/306/2016HC Delhi11 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 36(1)(vii)

…wed this by terming it as a notional and not a real loss. The ITAT disagreed and reversed the AO in light of the legal position explained in the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] 356 ITR 549 (Kar.) and the decisions High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 377 (Bom). The ITAT has noted that the above decisions referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) b. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (356 ITR 549)(Kar.) c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the com…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) b. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (356 ITR 549)(Kar.) c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the com…

Addl.Ci.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) b. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (356 ITR 549)(Kar.) c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the com…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) b. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (356 ITR 549)(Kar.) c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the com…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 601/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) b. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (356 ITR 549)(Kar.) c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the com…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) b. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (356 ITR 549)(Kar.) c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the com…

Addl.CIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) b. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (356 ITR 549)(Kar.) c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the com…

M/S. Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) b. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (356 ITR 549)(Kar.) c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the com…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1961/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ble because of transfer of security from category of “available for sale” to “held to maturity”. This issue now no longer survives in view of two decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:-…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1937/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ble because of transfer of security from category of “available for sale” to “held to maturity”. This issue now no longer survives in view of two decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:-…

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)
Section 36(1)(viia)

…ur notice the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench on similar issue in the case of Syndicate Bank v. DCIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 25 (Bangalore – Trib.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd., v. ACIT (356 ITR 549). 33. We have considered the rival submissions. Similar issue as to whether depreciation on investments held under the category “Held to Maturity” or “Available for Sale” can be allowed as deduction came up for consideration in Assessee’s own case in AY 10-11 in ITA No.1310/Bang/2012 and this Tribunal upheld similar order of CIT(A). The followin…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 578/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)
Section 36(1)(viia)

…ur notice the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench on similar issue in the case of Syndicate Bank v. DCIT (2013) 38 taxmann.com 25 (Bangalore – Trib.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd., v. ACIT (356 ITR 549). 33. We have considered the rival submissions. Similar issue as to whether depreciation on investments held under the category “Held to Maturity” or “Available for Sale” can be allowed as deduction came up for consideration in Assessee’s own case in AY 10-11 in ITA No.1310/Bang/2012 and this Tribunal upheld similar order of CIT(A). The followin…

DCIT vs. Ing Vysya Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

ITA 318/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)
Section 1Section 10Section 234D

…bunal. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A). In support of assessee's contentions, following decisions were also relied upon:- (i) UCO Bank, 240 ITR 355 (ii) Karnataka Bank Ltd., 356 ITR 549 (iii) Southern Technologies Ltd., 310 ITR 577 (SC) ITA No.288 & 318/Bang/2013 Page 41 of 50 59. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. Similar issue as to whether depreciation on investments held under the category “Held to Maturity” or “Available for Sale” can be allowed as deduction came up for consideration in the ca…