CIT v. Bank of Baroda

262 ITR 334High Court2003#2261 most cited

What is CIT v. Bank of Baroda authority for?

An assessee is entitled to claim a deduction for the depreciation in the value of investments, such as shares and securities, if these investments are valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower, consistent with the real income principle.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bank of Baroda · 262 ITR 334 · deduction for depreciation in investment value · valuation of shares and securities · cost or market value whichever is lower · real income principle · loss on investment valuation · UCO Bank Supreme Court

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 154Section 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetssection 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 43dapproved gratuity fundsection 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(viii)actual payment basissection 80hstrategic investmentsection 36(1)(vii)section 36(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Bank of Baroda

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…is in the nature of a business loss allowable under law. I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 8.1. The reliance placed by the assessee on judicial precedents is well founded. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Bank of Baroda reported in 262 ITR 334 held that diminution in the value of securities, recognized in accordance with banking norms, is allowable as a deduction, being in the nature of a trading loss. Similarly, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Corporation Bank v. ACIT reported in 174 ITR 616 has recognized that securities held by banks constitute stock-in-trade and any loss ar…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…is in the nature of a business loss allowable under law. I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 8.1. The reliance placed by the assessee on judicial precedents is well founded. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Bank of Baroda reported in 262 ITR 334 held that diminution in the value of securities, recognized in accordance with banking norms, is allowable as a deduction, being in the nature of a trading loss. Similarly, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Corporation Bank v. ACIT reported in 174 ITR 616 has recognized that securities held by banks constitute stock-in-trade and any loss ar…

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 37/RJT/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1st Floor Wing 2, LIC Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAHAS2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Ms. A.D. Vyas, AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of…

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)

…tion. 14. We have heard the parties. The Ld Counsel placed his heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda and in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC). In the case of Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 (Bom), the issue before their Lordship was whether the assessee was entitled for deduction on account of depreciation in the value of investments. The method of valuation followed by the assessee Bank was to value investments at cost or market value whichever was lower. The assessee had claimed the depreciation to the tune of Rs. 11,82,35,007/- a…

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

…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 [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) and Southern Technologies Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] 320 ITR 577 (…

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE - II (3),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

…the end of the year at cost or market value, whichever is lower and the difference arising as a result of valuation has to be assessed as loss or income. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Baroda reported in 262 ITR 334, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered this aspect and allowed the claim of deduction on account of depreciation in the value of investment by observing as under:- "In the case of UCO Bank v. CIT 1999] 240 ITR 355, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that where the market value of shares and securities had fallen below the co…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 878/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

…the end of the year at cost or market value, whichever is lower and the difference arising as a result of valuation has to be assessed as loss or income. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Baroda reported in 262 ITR 334, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered this aspect and allowed the claim of deduction on account of depreciation in the value of investment by observing as under:- "In the case of UCO Bank v. CIT 1999] 240 ITR 355, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that where the market value of shares and securities had fallen below the co…

IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT-CORP CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the end of the year at cost or market value, whichever is lower and the difference arising as a result of valuation has to be assessed as loss or income. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Baroda reported in 262 ITR 334, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered this aspect and allowed the claim of deduction on account of depreciation in the value of investment by observing as under:- "In the case of UCO Bank v. CIT 1999] 240 ITR 355, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that where the market value of shares and securities had fallen below the co…

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

…o be disclosed and for determining the real income entries in a balance sheet required to be maintained in the statutory form may not be decisive or conclusive. The view of the Supreme Court has been followed by the Bombay High Court in CIT V. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334) and the Kerala High Court in CIT V. Nedungadi Bank (264 ITR 545). 3.8 In Bank's merged entity-Erstwhile Bank of Madura, Mumbai Tribunal in ITA 677 & 678/M/2014 dated December 12, 2019 for AY 2000-01 and 2001- 02 has following the order of earlier years held that depreciation claimed by assessee on securities held as stock in trade is allowable.…

DCIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CREDIT SUISSE FINANACE (INDIA) PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

ITA 2006/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.2006/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13) आअसं.2007/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) आअसं.2001/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Credit Suisse Finance (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9Th Floor, Ceejay House, Plot F, Shivsagar Estate, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. Pan: Aaacb-3741-N ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Revenue By : Shri H.M.Bhatt Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala With Shri Paras Savla & Shri Harsh Savla सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala with Shri Paras Savla &For Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

…Court in the case of UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) and it was further held that the loss arising on account of valuation of closing stock is allowable as deduction. The above said decision was followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334). The Ld A.R submitted that the RBI Circular (Paper book pages 248, 250 and 256 of AY 2010- 11) also requires that securities should be valued on the basis of cost or market value, whichever is lower and should recognise the resultant loss, if any. Hence, we are of the view that the Provision for diminution in the value of investments is allowabl…

DCIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CREDIT SUISSE FINANCE (INDIA) PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

ITA 2001/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.2006/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13) आअसं.2007/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) आअसं.2001/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Credit Suisse Finance (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9Th Floor, Ceejay House, Plot F, Shivsagar Estate, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. Pan: Aaacb-3741-N ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Revenue By : Shri H.M.Bhatt Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala With Shri Paras Savla & Shri Harsh Savla सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala with Shri Paras Savla &For Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

…Court in the case of UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) and it was further held that the loss arising on account of valuation of closing stock is allowable as deduction. The above said decision was followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334). The Ld A.R submitted that the RBI Circular (Paper book pages 248, 250 and 256 of AY 2010- 11) also requires that securities should be valued on the basis of cost or market value, whichever is lower and should recognise the resultant loss, if any. Hence, we are of the view that the Provision for diminution in the value of investments is allowabl…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…hod of valuation of lower of cost or market price in respect of securities. Accordingly, the method of valuation followed by the assessee is required to be accepted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bombay)  CIT vs. Corpn. Bank Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 616 (Karnataka) Further, the issue was not disputed upto financial year 2003-04 and hence, the AO is not justified in taking a different view. 68. The assessee also relied on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 1977 of 2013. The assess…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…hod of valuation of lower of cost or market price in respect of securities. Accordingly, the method of valuation followed by the assessee is required to be accepted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bombay)  CIT vs. Corpn. Bank Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 616 (Karnataka) Further, the issue was not disputed upto financial year 2003-04 and hence, the AO is not justified in taking a different view. 68. The assessee also relied on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 1977 of 2013. The assess…

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)

…ted scrip wise and only net depreciation, if any, is required to be provided for in the accounts. The above Instruction was issued by CBDT vide Instruction No.17/2008 dated 26/11/2008. The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of GIT vs. Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 held that the banks are required as per RBI’s guidelines to show these in the balance sheet as investments would not affect the nature of the asset. The banks by the very nature of the business may have to park surplus trading funds in securities and although intended to be trading assets may have to keep them for longer periods if funds are not…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 4951/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

…ities. Accordingly, the method of valuation followed by the assessee is required to be accepted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: 34 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India • CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bombay) • CIT vs. Corpn. Bank Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 616 (Karnataka) Further, the issue was not disputed upto financial year 2003-04 and hence, the AO is not justified in taking a different view. 68. The assessee also relied on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 1977 of 2013. The assess…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3685/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

…ities. Accordingly, the method of valuation followed by the assessee is required to be accepted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: 34 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India • CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bombay) • CIT vs. Corpn. Bank Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 616 (Karnataka) Further, the issue was not disputed upto financial year 2003-04 and hence, the AO is not justified in taking a different view. 68. The assessee also relied on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 1977 of 2013. The assess…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3779/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)

…hod of valuation of lower of cost or market price in respect of securities. Accordingly, the method of valuation followed by the assessee is required to be accepted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bombay)  CIT vs. Corpn. Bank Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 616 (Karnataka) Further, the issue was not disputed upto financial year 2003-04 and hence, the AO is not justified in taking a different view. 68. The assessee also relied on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 1977 of 2013. The assess…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT PEOPLES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, SURAT

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 73/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.73/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. The Surat Peoples Co- Tax, Circle-2(2), Room No. 662, Operative Bank Aayakar Bhawan, Ltd.,‘Vasundhara Majura Gate, Bahavan’, Surat Timaliyawad, Nanpura, Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 5Section 6

…any such claims," In such circumstances, where the same method of accounting is followed and allowed from year to year, such claim has been held to be allowable by the different courts. The Hon'ble Mumbai High court in the ease of CIT v. Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 has held that "Depreciation in value of investment held by bank was allowable as deduction, more so when the loss was debited to P&L A/c which was reflected as provision for liability in the balance sheet and the share and securities were valued at cost on the asset side. Same proposition has been upheld by Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. Ned…

THE SURAT PEOPLES CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)-II,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 957/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.957/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Surat Peoples Co-Operative Bank Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. ‘Vasundhara Bahavan’, Timaliyawad, Nanpura, Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 5Section 6

…any such claims," In such circumstances, where the same method of accounting is followed and allowed from year to year, such claim has been held to be allowable by the different courts. The Hon'ble Mumbai High court in the ease of CIT v. Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 has held that "Depreciation in value of investment held by bank was allowable as deduction, more so when the loss was debited to P&L A/c which was reflected as provision for liability in the balance sheet and the share and securities were valued at cost on the asset side. Same proposition has been upheld by Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. Ned…

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3041/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)

…t or market price whichever is lower. The loss arising on account of such valuation is allowable as legitimate deduction based on various judicial decisions including that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (240 ITR 355), CIT vs. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334 Bom.), CIT vs. Lakshmi Vitas Bank Ltd. (264 ITR 662 Mad.) Moreover, the SPL filed by the Department has also been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. (313 ITR 26 Stat). 1.5 It is further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer having concluded that the securities held under HTM category constitute its stoc…

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3