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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 351/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…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 350/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

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…

Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax & Ors

ITA/496/2018HC Delhi16 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 36Section 44C

…ITA 496/2018 Page 1 of 4 $~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 496/2018 STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. .....Appellant Through: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Mr. Pravesh Sharma and Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advs. versus DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Panel Counsel with Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs, Mr. Anmol Jagga and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advs. for Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R…

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

…a [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 (SC). 4. However, Mr. Shivpuri, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, seeks to place reliance on another decision of High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income Tax v. ING VYSYA Bank Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 532 (Kar.) where…

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. Ci Hospitality Worldwide Private Limited, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed and Cross

ITA 449/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 253(3)

…f the Assessing Officer to adopt such method of computation as he deems appropriate for proper determination of the true income of the assessee. (E.5) We also take guidance from the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC). It was held in this case that u/s 145 of the IT Act, in a case where accounts are correct and complete but the method employed is such that in the opinion of the Income Tax Officer, the income cannot be properly deduced therefrom, the computation shall be made in such manner and on such basis as the Income Tax Officer may determine. The Hon…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd versus CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802. It was also contested that securities of the bank are in the nature of stock in trade and as held in the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of United Commercial Bank Versus Cit 240 ITR 355 that a bank is entitled for ` depreciation in valuation of closing stock. Several other judicial precedents were pressed into service. Thus, it was contested that the amortization of premium in respect of investments ‘held in ‘held to maturity’ category is another method of valuation which is prescribed by the reserve bank of India and is consist…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…trial Investment Corporation Ltd versus CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802. It was also contested that securities of the bank are in the nature of stock in trade and as held in the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of United Commercial Bank Versus Cit 240 ITR 355 that a bank is entitled for Page | 67 depreciation in valuation of closing stock. Several other judicial precedents were pressed into service. Thus, it was contested that the amortization of premium in respect of investments ‘held in ‘held to maturity’ category is another method of valuation which is prescribed by the reserve bank of India…

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)

…s. 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 cost before the date of valuation and where on the date of valuation, the market value is less than the actual cost, then the Appellant was entitled to value the articles at market price and the Appellant was entitled to claim the l…

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)

…s. 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 cost before the date of valuation and where on the date of valuation, the market value is less than the actual cost, then the Appellant was entitled to value the articles at market price and the Appellant was entitled to claim the l…

Director of Income Tax vs. Standard Chartered Grindalys Bank Ltd

ITA/615/2009HC Delhi19 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

…024 at 11:32:50 ITA 563/2007 & connected matters Page 10 of 12 upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (200 ITR 68) for making this disallowance. That judgement had subsequently been reversed by the Supreme Court in 240 ITR 355(SC), Reliance was placed on Article 7 of the Indo- Australian Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty under which the Business Profits of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India were to be computed. Under Article 7 of the aforesaid Treaty the profits of a PE carrying on business in India were to be computed as if it were a distinct and separate enterp…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anz Grindlays Bank Ltd

ITA/1300/2007HC Delhi19 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

…024 at 11:32:50 ITA 563/2007 & connected matters Page 10 of 12 upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (200 ITR 68) for making this disallowance. That judgement had subsequently been reversed by the Supreme Court in 240 ITR 355(SC), Reliance was placed on Article 7 of the Indo- Australian Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty under which the Business Profits of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India were to be computed. Under Article 7 of the aforesaid Treaty the profits of a PE carrying on business in India were to be computed as if it were a distinct and separate enterp…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd

ITA/387/2019HC Delhi19 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

…024 at 11:32:52 ITA 563/2007 & connected matters Page 10 of 12 upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (200 ITR 68) for making this disallowance. That judgement had subsequently been reversed by the Supreme Court in 240 ITR 355(SC), Reliance was placed on Article 7 of the Indo- Australian Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty under which the Business Profits of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India were to be computed. Under Article 7 of the aforesaid Treaty the profits of a PE carrying on business in India were to be computed as if it were a distinct and separate enterp…

Director of Income Tax vs. Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd

ITA/629/2009HC Delhi19 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

…024 at 11:32:50 ITA 563/2007 & connected matters Page 10 of 12 upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (200 ITR 68) for making this disallowance. That judgement had subsequently been reversed by the Supreme Court in 240 ITR 355(SC), Reliance was placed on Article 7 of the Indo- Australian Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty under which the Business Profits of Permanent Establishment (PE) in India were to be computed. Under Article 7 of the aforesaid Treaty the profits of a PE carrying on business in India were to be computed as if it were a distinct and separate enterp…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1230/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

…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, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissisoner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1018/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

…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…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 464/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…it was held that investments in Government securities which are classified as HTM cannot be considered as stock-in-trade and therefore, depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed. In the Apex court in the case of UCO Banks Vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that the 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 proportionate that investments by banks to comply with SLR investments would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value of th…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 463/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…it was held that investments in Government securities which are classified as HTM cannot be considered as stock-in-trade and therefore, depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed. In the Apex court in the case of UCO Banks Vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that the 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 proportionate that investments by banks to comply with SLR investments would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value of th…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 462/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…it was held that investments in Government securities which are classified as HTM cannot be considered as stock-in-trade and therefore, depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed. In the Apex court in the case of UCO Banks Vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that the 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 proportionate that investments by banks to comply with SLR investments would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value of th…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 461/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…it was held that investments in Government securities which are classified as HTM cannot be considered as stock-in-trade and therefore, depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed. In the Apex court in the case of UCO Banks Vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that the 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 proportionate that investments by banks to comply with SLR investments would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value of th…