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 366,470 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

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 1375/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Blue Star Diamonds Pvt Ltd Ce-9010,9013, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Room No.568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, 400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aadcb6475E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 14ASection 250

…21] held that where facts and law in a subsequent assessment year are the same, no authority whether quasi-judicial or judicial, can generally be permitted to take a different view. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT [240 ITR 355] it was held that the method of accounting adopted by the taxpayer 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. Further, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Ema India Ltd [296 ITR 510] wherein it was…

DCIT, Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2948/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 32(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

…at length and by following the orders of his predecessor in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06 decided the issue in favour of the assessee bank in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC). 31. It is the argument of the learned DR that though the assessee has been relying on the orders of the Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07, facts involved in those matters are entirely different from the facts involved in this matter inasmuch as in Assessment Year 2005-06 the issue before the Tribunal was regarding the a…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…ed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of noted to have been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44) and United CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44) Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44) Commercial Bank Vs CIT (240 ITR 355). Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 38.7 Hence, in light of the above decisions (supra), and more particularly Hence, in light of the above decisions (supra), and more particularly Hence, in light of the above decisions (supra), and more particularly the ICDS-II which is applicable in the impugned AY, we find that, it was II which is applicable in the i…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…ed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of noted to have been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44) and United CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44) Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44) Commercial Bank Vs CIT (240 ITR 355). Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 38.7 Hence, in light of the above decisions (supra), and more particularly Hence, in light of the above decisions (supra), and more particularly Hence, in light of the above decisions (supra), and more particularly the ICDS-II which is applicable in the impugned AY, we find that, it was II which is applicable in the i…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…ed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of noted to have been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44) and United CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44) Paints India Ltd. (188 ITR 44) Commercial Bank Vs CIT (240 ITR 355). Commercial Bank Vs CIT ( 38.7 Hence, in light of the above decisions (supra), and more particularly Hence, in light of the above decisions (supra), and more particularly Hence, in light of the above decisions (supra), and more particularly the ICDS-II which is applicable in the impugned AY, we find that, it was II which is applicable in the i…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Union Bank of India, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 316/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

…ment in Government Securities which are classified under the head HTM cannot be considered as stock in trade and therefore depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed as a deduction. The Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Ltd Vs CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that value of the securities at cost or market value whichever is less should be accepted for income tax even if the banks in their books do not value on that basis. Therefore, it is an accepted proportion that investment made by the bank to comply with the SLR requirement would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value o…

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

…ment in Government Securities which are classified under the head HTM cannot be considered as stock in trade and therefore depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed as a deduction. The Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Ltd Vs CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that value of the securities at cost or market value whichever is less should be accepted for income tax even if the banks in their books do not value on that basis. Therefore, it is an accepted proportion that investment made by the bank to comply with the SLR requirement would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value o…

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)

…nt of Rs. 14,70,000/-. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 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 claim…

Navratan Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm Central Circle 8(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3586/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)

…Act (See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 333 (SC):; Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Тахтап 502 (SC): Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taхтап 601 (SC)." 10.8.4 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools held that merely because a different treatment was given in the books of accounts cannot be a factor which would deprive the Assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that entries in the books of accounts a…

Utility Supply Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3585/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smiti Samant, Ld. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3585/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Utility Supply Private Limited, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8(4), PAN: AABCU0100B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Smiti Samant, Ld. D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2025 ORDER Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.06.2024, impugned herein…

ACIT Circle 1 (1)&Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited., Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2333/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…method of accounting system, there is no justification in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue of amortization of premium on government securities. United Commercial Bank v. CIT (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 v. ITO – ITA No.141/PNJ/2011, dated.8.9.2011 : 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 ca…

ACIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2332/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…method of accounting system, there is no justification in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue of amortization of premium on government securities. United Commercial Bank v. CIT (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 v. ITO – ITA No.141/PNJ/2011, dated.8.9.2011 : 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 ca…

ACIT Circle1(1)& Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S South Kanara District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2331/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…method of accounting system, there is no justification in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue of amortization of premium on government securities. United Commercial Bank v. CIT (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 v. ITO – ITA No.141/PNJ/2011, dated.8.9.2011 : 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 ca…

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 219/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…method of accounting system, there is no justification in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue of amortization of premium on government securities. United Commercial Bank v. CIT (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 v. ITO – ITA No.141/PNJ/2011, dated.8.9.2011 : 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 ca…

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 218/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…method of accounting system, there is no justification in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue of amortization of premium on government securities. United Commercial Bank v. CIT (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 v. ITO – ITA No.141/PNJ/2011, dated.8.9.2011 : 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 ca…

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 217/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

…method of accounting system, there is no justification in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue of amortization of premium on government securities. United Commercial Bank v. CIT (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 v. ITO – ITA No.141/PNJ/2011, dated.8.9.2011 : 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 ca…

DCIT-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhawan vs. Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt Ltd, Nariman Point

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5092/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 4917 & 4918/MUM/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Marshall Produce Brokers Company Asst. CIT Circle 3(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 608, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22/23 Jolly Maker Chamber No. 2, M.K. Road, 225 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN NO. AAACM 7312 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT -3(2)(1), Marshall Produce Brokers Company Room No. 608, 6th floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 22/23 Jolly Maker C…

Marshall Produce Brokers Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4918/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 4917 & 4918/MUM/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Marshall Produce Brokers Company Asst. CIT Circle 3(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 608, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22/23 Jolly Maker Chamber No. 2, M.K. Road, 225 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN NO. AAACM 7312 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT -3(2)(1), Marshall Produce Brokers Company Room No. 608, 6th floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 22/23 Jolly Maker C…

Marshall Produce Brokers Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4917/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Harsh Kothari

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 4917 & 4918/MUM/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Marshall Produce Brokers Company Asst. CIT Circle 3(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 608, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22/23 Jolly Maker Chamber No. 2, M.K. Road, 225 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN NO. AAACM 7312 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT -3(2)(1), Marshall Produce Brokers Company Room No. 608, 6th floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 22/23 Jolly Maker C…

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ment in Government Securities which are classified under the head HTM cannot be considered as stock in trade and therefore depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed as a deduction. The Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Ltd Vs CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that value of the securities at cost or market value whichever is less should be accepted for income tax even if the banks in their books do not value on that basis. Therefore, it is an accepted proportion that investment made by the bank to comply with the SLR requirement would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value o…