TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 2004-05 and cross objections for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2007-08. ITA.427/Bang/2010 Asst.Year : 2001-02 -By the Revenue : 02. In this appeal the only ground is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) has erred in allowing the assessee's claim of depreciation on valuation of investment portfolio by treating the investments held by the assessee bank as stock-in-trade. The decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) on this point is found just and proper in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1999) 240 ITR 355 and the decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Corporation Bank in ITA.112/Bang/2008, dated.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee as seen from the judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Canara Bank (1997) 195 ITR 66 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shoorji Vallabdas Co., (1962)46 ITR 144 (SC). The ITAT, Bangalore Bench has also held in assessee's own case in favour of the assessee through its common order dated.07.09.2007, for the assessment years 2001-02 2002-03. This ground accordingly fails. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. ITA.711/Bang/2010 Asst.Year : 2007-08 -By the Revenue : 09. The ground relating to depreciation on investment is dismissed ; the ground relating to disallowance u/s.14A is dismissed ; the ground relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.88E urged before the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) which was originally disallowed by the assessing authority. Under similar circumstances, the Assessing Officer was directed to consider the claim in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., (2008) (306 ITR 42) and that of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Smt. Gyarasidevi v. Union of India And Others (2001) (250 ITR 432). Accordingly this issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 12. This cross objection is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. C.O.No.57/B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
