United Commercial Bank v. CIT

240 ITR 355Supreme Court of India1999#245 most cited

What is United Commercial Bank v. CIT authority for?

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

314

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

United Commercial Bank v. CIT · Section 145 · Section 37(1) · mercantile system of accounting · accrual basis deduction · unascertained liability · provision for expenses · deferred quantification · disputed liability · business deductions

Also reported as

156 CTR 380

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 145Section 36(1)(viii)Section 10(34)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 145(1)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)interest on securitiesmercantile system of accountingsection 10(34)profits and gains of business or professionsection 145section 36(1)disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing United Commercial Bank v. CIT

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3112/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…he Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to c…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3111/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…he Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to c…

M/S Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 5847/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…he Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to c…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…relevant accounting year is an allowable deduction even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date: a) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC) b) Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) c) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) d) Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) e) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 f) CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) g) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 31…

ACIT, Circle-42, Murshidabad vs. M/S Udyog & Co., Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1906/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1906/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Circle-42, Murshidabad -Vs- M/S Udyog & Co.. [Pan: Aaafu 7850 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Altaj Hussain, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Kochar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40a

…such. A method of accounting adopted by the tax payer consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the Departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping accounts or of valuation (United Commercial Bank vs CIT 240 ITR 355) (SC). Thus I do not see any justifiable reason to deviate from the established and accepted system of accounting which the assessee has been following and, accordingly, I am of the opinion that the estimated addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made by the A.O. under the head work-in-progress is not called for. In this view of the matter, the addition o…

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

…he action of the AO in disallowing loss claimed on treating investments as stock-in-trade by drawing the investment trading account of Rs.775,96,55,047. The Tribunal held “16. We have heard both sides and find that the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank in 240 ITR 355 has held as under : "In our view, as stated above, consistently for 30 years, the assessee was valuing the stock-in- trade at cost for the purpose of statutory balance-sheet, and for the income-tax return, valuation was at cost or market value, whichever was lower. That practice was accepted by the Department and there was no justifiable reason f…

Sree Alankar, Ganjam vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/s. Sree Alankar, Big Vs. PR. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar. Bazar, Berhampur PAN/GIR No.ABDFS 9511 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Sri S.K.Tulsiyan, AR Revenue by : Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11/09/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12 /09/ 2018 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar dated 17.3.2017 for the assessment year…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 1013/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhbank Of India A C I T - 2(1) C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Vs. M.K Road Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent D C I T - 2(1) Bank Of India Room No. 561, 5Th Floor C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Vs. 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Mumbai 400020 Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2018 O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, Am These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Mumbai Dated 27.11.2012 For A.Y. 2005-06 In The Matter Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…at paras 50 & 51 of his order, which reads as under: - “50. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank 240 ITR 355 and by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 (Bom) and by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 97-98 ITA No.l680/M/2001 where Hon'ble ITAT has held as below: 'With regard to the first ground after hearing rival contentions we find that the first appellate authori…

ACIT, Ltu, Kolkata vs. M/S. Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and assessee’s CO is allowed

ITA 1615/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 40

…ssessee is required to hold certain securities and also in the course of carrying on banking business the shares of bodies corporate are required to be held. Drawing attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the assessee’s own case reported in 240 ITR 355, the Ld. AR submitted that although in the assessee’s Balance Sheet, the shares & securities were declared under the head “Investments” yet the true character of such holding was considered by the Supreme Court to be on “trading” account. Accordingly the Ld. AR submitted that any gain or loss which the assessee earned from purchase and sale of sh…

M/S the Keshab Jewellers, Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1225/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S The Keshab Jewellers -Vs- Jcit, Range-50, Kolkata [Pan: Aabft 5144 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kr. Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…sment proceedings of the assessee. Then there is no justifiable reason to reject the same method during the year under appeal. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC) wherein the principles were laid down for valuation of assets at page 366. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT v. Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT v. Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) C…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sharad Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Solapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1240/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 145Section 260ASection 43D

…ed through the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bank of Baroda, reported in (2003) 262 ITR 334 (Bombay) as well as in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC)). The Supreme Court in the said judgment held that merely because the securities are kept under the head by the bank till the maturity, the said security 9 Sharad Nagari Sah. Bank Ltd., cannot be treated as a purely investment. The security held by the bank is in the nature of stock in trade. 4. In view of the above, reliance placed by the…

A.C.I.T.2(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1891/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyariFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)

…loss incurred on diminution in value of investment held as stock-in-trade. In this 9 M/s. Central Bank of India regard, he relied upon the decision of the Bank of Baroda (supra) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC). 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Assessing Officer has disallowed diminution in value of investment held as stock-in-trade on the ground that the loss incurred by the assessee on account of diminution in value of investment is a notional loss which cannot be allowed as deduction. Accord…

M/S Country Club India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

ITA 1714/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Holidays Ltd (Formerly Tax, Circle 3 (2) Known As Country Club Hyderabad India Ltd) Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc8276B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…due is brought into credit before it is actually received; it brings into debit an expenditure for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. (see judgment of this Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355). Therefore, the accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a given period of time needs to be presumed to be correct till the AO comes to the conclusion for reasons to be given that the system does not reflect true and correct profits. As stated, there is no finding given by the AO on the correctness of the accounting standard fo…

Dy.CIT, Cir-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Cuntry Club (I) Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

ITA 1735/HYD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy
Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…due is brought into credit before it is actually received; it brings into debit an expenditure for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. (see judgment of this Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355). Therefore, the accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a given period of time needs to be presumed to be correct till the AO comes to the conclusion for reasons to be given that the system does not reflect true and correct profits. As stated, there is no finding given by the AO on the correctness of the accounting standard fo…

M/S. Country Club India Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

ITA 1689/HYD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy
Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…due is brought into credit before it is actually received; it brings into debit an expenditure for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. (see judgment of this Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355). Therefore, the accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a given period of time needs to be presumed to be correct till the AO comes to the conclusion for reasons to be given that the system does not reflect true and correct profits. As stated, there is no finding given by the AO on the correctness of the accounting standard fo…

ITO, WD-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Roopshree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 828/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 442/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 828/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…sment proceedings of the assessee. Then there is no justifiable reason to reject the same method during the year under appeal. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC) wherein the principles were laid down for valuation of assets at page 366. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del)…

M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-9(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 442/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 828/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…sment proceedings of the assessee. Then there is no justifiable reason to reject the same method during the year under appeal. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC) wherein the principles were laid down for valuation of assets at page 366. We find that the following decisions also support the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del)…

Synthes Medical P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri M.P. Lohia/Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: S/Shri V. Jenardhanan /V.Jayant Kumar-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 ITA Nos. 6005 & 6006/Del/2013 & ITA No. 5807/Del/2013 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However,it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to clai…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S M Visvesvaraya Co-Op Bank Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1436/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. M. Visvesvaraya Co-Op Income Tax, Bank Ltd., Circle – 5(2)(1), Shankar Mutt Road Branch, Bengaluru. No.109, Shankar Mutt Road, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaaas 3586 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. P. V Pradeep Kumar, Acit Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.03.2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. P. V Pradeep Kumar, ACIT

…4 following consistent and regular method of accounting system, there is no justification in interfering with order of the CIT(A) on this issue of amortization of premium on government securities. United Commercial Bank Vs. C1T(1999) 156 CTR (SC) 380; (1999) 240 ITR 355 (SC) and South Indian Bank Ltd. (ITA No.126/Coch/2004, dated Sept, 2005 followed." (ii) The Khanapur Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs ITO-ITANo.141/PNJ/2011, dated 08/09/2011: The Hon'ble Bench of Panaji Tribunal had recorded its findings that "6. Likewise, the premium amortized at Rs.1,78,098/- is claimed to be in respect of securities held under the categor…

Rupam Jewellers, Purba Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle, -27(1) Haldia, Haldia

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 267/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri S..K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145ASection 194CSection 40

…valued in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee and that this section over rides Sec.145 of the Act. (e) for the proposition argued above reliance is placed on the following case laws :- i)United Commercial Bank vs CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) (ii)CIT vs British Paints 188 ITR 44 (SC) (iii)CIT vs J.P.Patel 263 ITR 421 (MP) (f) the findings of the AO that LIFO method of valuation of inventory is not prescribed in AS-2, is factually and legally incorrect, as AS-2 gives liberty to the assessee to follow a valid stock formula that may be applied. (g) the calculation made by the AO…