TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] we hold that the assessee bank is eligible to claim and be allowed write off of the bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) and we therefore reverse and delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in this regard. Consequently, Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Disallowance of claim u/s.36(1)(viia) - AO was of the view that it is only the incremental advances that has to be considered for computing the AAA [Aggregate Rural Advances] and consequently allowed the deduction partly - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is settled in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank [ 2017 (11) TMI 1425 - ITAT BANGALORE] and in view thereof we hold that the computation of the AAA made by the Assessing Officer is incorrect. AR submitted that the assessee is not disputing the classification of rural branches made by the Assessing Officer and accepts the AAA as at 31.3.2010 at ₹ 2020,71,42,322 as arrived at by the Assessing Officer at page 42 of the order of assessment and in this context pleaded that the matter need not be remanded back to the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JB of the Act are not applicable to Banking companies. Contribution to Pension Fund and Gratuity Fund - Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction only to the extent of the amount debited to the profit and loss account and disallowed the rest and the CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance - HELD THAT:- We find that the above decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Andhra Bank [ 2014 (7) TMI 904 - ITAT HYDERABAD] is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In this factual and legal matrix of the case as discussed above, we find no cause for interference with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue - ITA No. 915, 845/Bang/2017, 1647, 1651, 1284, 1252/Bang/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2018 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, JJ. Appellant By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, JCIT (D.R) ORDER Per Bench : These are cross appeals, by the assessee and revenue, directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, LTU, Bangalore dt.28.04.2016 for the Assessment Year 2010-11; dt.15.7.2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and dt.30.01.2017 for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of ₹ 467,58,97,863/- u/s 36(1)(vii). 2.1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the bad debts were not written off by the appellant bank. 2.2. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is based on surmises conjunctures. 2.3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the bad debts were not written off since there was no debitto the Profit Loss Account. 2.4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting entries passed in the books of accounts. 2.5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appellant bank s own case. 2.6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 577 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff by it u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. In the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim as he was of the view that it was only a prudential write off since the individual accounts were not squared off. The Assessing Officer also observed that the write off was not debited to the assessee's profit and loss account. On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) rejected the assessee's contentions that the said bad debts are written off by debit in the profit and loss account under the head Bad Debts Written Off Account under the code 163301, as he was of the view that unless the individual debts are squared off, the entries in the books of account cannot be accepted as reliable. In coming to this finding the learned CIT (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Limited (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). 5.2.1 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee bank has written off the debts by debiting the same to the Bad Debts Written Off Account under the GL Code 163301 which is part of the profit and loss account and recoveries made in written off accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt to write off. 5.3 Per contra, the ld. CIT, DR placed reliance on the findings rendered by the authorities below on this issue. It was contended that since the assessee's bank had not closed the individual debtors accounts at the Branch Level, there cannot be any write off. 5.4 In rejoinder, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee bank submitted that there is no requirement to close the individual debtors account at the branch books, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the assessee's own case. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative also placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No.331/Bang/2016 dt.22.7.2016. 5.5.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. The facts on record indicate that the assessee bank has debited the bad debts written off to the account Bad Debts Written Off Account (GL Code 163301) which is part of the profit and loss account and has reduced the write off from Gross Advances in the Balance Sheet. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. There is also a flipside to the argument of the Department. Assessee has instituted recovery suits in Courts against its debtors. If individual accounts are to be closed, then the debtor/defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed. 9. Before concluding, we may refer to an argument advanced on behalf of the Department. According to the Department, it is necessary to square off each individual account failing which there is likelihood of escapement of income from assessment. According to the Department, in cases where a borrower s account is written off by debiting P L a/c and by crediting loans and advances or debtors accounts on the asset side of the balance sheet, then, as and when in the subsequent years if the borrower repays the loan, the assessee will credit the repaid amount to the loans and advances account and not to the P L a/c which would result in escapement of income from assessment. On the other hand, if bad debt is written off by closing the borrower s account individually, then the repaid amount in subsequent years will be credited to the P L a/c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, it is seen that the assessee bank had created a provision for bad and doubtful debts amounting to ₹ 475,23,01,271 in the books of account and claimed deduction of ₹ 286,25,28,361 u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act based on the Aggregate Rural Advances (AAA) computed as per Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ( the Rules ). The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that it is only the incremental advances that has to be considered for computing the AAA and consequently allowed the deduction to the extent of ₹ 54,24,06,543 and thereby disallowed ₹ 232,01,21,818. On appeal, the assessee submitted that the provisions of Rule 6ABA are very clear and do not mandate that only incremental advance is to be considered, but rather the advances outstanding at the end of each month is to be considered. The learned CIT (Appeals) disregarded, both the contentions of the assessee and the judicial pronouncements cited and upheld the Assessing Officer s view that it is only the incremental advances that has to be considered for the purpose of computing AAA. 7.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee reiterated the submission that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sums so arrived at in respect of each of the rural branches shall be the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of the scheduled bank. Explanation : In this rule, rural branch and scheduled bank shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Explanation to clause (viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. From a bare reading of the above rule it is crystal clear that the said rules prescribe three steps for computing AAA in the following manner: Step One - In respect of each rural branch, note down the amounts of advances outstanding at the end of the last day of each month comprised in the previous year and aggregate the amounts so noted. Step Two- Divide the aggregate amount arrived at in Step One by the number of months for which the outstanding amounts have been taken into account for the purpose of Step One. Step Three- Aggregate the amounts arrived at under Step Two in respect of all the rural branches. Thus, it is clear that the said Rules do not provide for only fresh advances made by each rural branch during each month alone is to be considered. It only prescribes that the amount of advances made by rural branch and is outstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orking submitted by ld. AR, the provision created during the year u/s 36(1)(viia) read with rule 6ABA, amounts to ₹ 16,35,55,829.00 whereas assessee has claimed deduction of ₹ 5,16,46,976, which is well within the provision permissible under section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition of ₹ 3,88,25,673. However, as far as deduction of ₹ 18,79,704 is concerned, the same cannot be allowed u/s 36(1)(vii) considering the fact such amount has not exceeded the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia). At the same time, alternative claim of the assessee that it is to be allowed u/s 37(1), in our view, is acceptable. On a perusal of the assessment order and the facts and materials available on record, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department has not controverted this fact. Therefore, in our view, the waiver of interest at the instance of the State Government, has to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1). Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment for this year was passed. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire claim on the ground that the computation adopted by the assessee was not prescribed by the Act and the assessee bank ought to have drawn up a profit and loss account of the eligible business and provide actual profit earned therefrom. On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) held that the assessee is eligible for deduction only to the extent of ₹ 25 Crores since during the year under consideration only ₹ 25 Crores was transferred to Special Reserve. 8.2.1 The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee bank submitted that the assessee had transferred ₹ 25 Crores on 31.3.2010 and ₹ 51 Crores on 31.3.2012 to the Special Reserve; which facts have been noted by the learned CIT (Appeals) in the impugned order. It is the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that there is no stipulation in the Act that the transfer to Special Reserve has to be made in the same financial year. It is submitted that this issue has been settled in favour of the assessee by the following judicial pronouncements :- i. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation (2010) 323 ITR 495 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of any special reserve created (and maintained) by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India or by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes, an amount not exceeding forty per cent of the profits derived from such business of providing long-term finance computed under the head Profits and gains of business or profession (before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account : Sec. 28(1) Profits and gains of business or profession 28. The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Profits and gains of business or profession ,- (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year; Sec. 2(34) Previous year means the previous year as defined in s. 3; Sec. 3 Previous year defined 3 For the purposes of this Act, previous year means t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fact that the section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in view of the various decisions also referred to by the Tribunal, we think, no question of law arises in regard to this aspect. We, therefore, decline to refer this question. The observation made by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in this regard is thus clearly applicable to the instant case under consideration also. 22. We further find that the Special Bench of Tribunal (Chandigarh) in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (supra) also clearly held that in case of claim under s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act further reserve could be created after closure of the account and AO should offer an opportunity to the assessee to do the same for claiming the deduction under s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 23. Similar view as taken by the apex Court in the case of Karimjee (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein while dealing with deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act, their Lordships observed that creation of reserve after closure of the accounts was construed as complying with the requirement of granting deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act and in this case the timing of crea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in giving relief towards disallowance u/ s. 14A of the Act by wrongly relying on the decision of CCI Ltd Vs. JCIT (2012) 206 taxman 563. The facts in that case were different and not applicable to the asscsscc's case as in that case, the assessee was a dealer in shares and securities. In the Assessee's case, it is not a dealer in shares and securities and the investments are governed by RBI guidelines. In a similar case, the Hon 'ble Kerala High Court held that object or purpose of investment does not affect operation of section 14A in as much as any expenditure incurred for earning tax free income is not an allowable deduction by virtue of operation of said section. Therefore, even though purchase of tax free bonds was for meeting SLR requirements, interest and other expenditure incurred on borrowals for investment in tax free bonds was to be disallowed (State Bank of Travancore- 16 Taxmann.com 289). 5. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Sec. 115JB of the Act are not applicable to banking companies. 6. Any other ground urged at the time of appeal 11. Ground Nos.1 2 Depreciation on HT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that this issue has been considered and held in favour of assessee and against Revenue both by the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and those of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case. We find that a co-ordinate bench, while dismissing Revenue s ground on this issue in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2008-09 in its order in ITA No.578 653/Bang/2012 at paras 33 34 thereof has held as under :- 33. We have considered the rival submissions. Similar issue as to whether depreciation on investments held under the category Held to Maturity or Available for Sale can be allowed as deduction came up for consideration in Assessee s own case in AY 10-11 in ITA No.1310/Bang/2012 and this Tribunal upheld similar order of CIT(A). The following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal:- 21. We have considered the rival submissions. Similar issue as to whether depreciation on investments held under the category Held to Maturity can be allowed as deduction came up for consideration in the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) before the ITAT Bangalore Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties on the ground that the assessee was maintaining the balancesheet in the statutory form on the basis of the cost of the investments. In such cases, there is no question of following two different methods for valuing its stock-intrade (investments) because the bank was required to prepare the balance-sheet in the prescribed form and it had no option to change it. For the purpose of income tax as stated earlier, what is to be taxed is the real income which is to be deduced on the basis of the accounting system regularly maintained by the assessee and that was done by the assessee in the present case. The Bangalore Bench of ITAT in Corporation Bank (supra) has also followed the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the ITAT, Mumbai and ITAT, Chennai. Following the above decisions, we are deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. This ground of appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 60. Apart from the above, the ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that the decision rendered by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ING Vysya Bank (supra) is per in curiam the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT, 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnataka High Court and the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case (supra). In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue and consequently finding no merit in grounds at S.Nos.1 2 (supra) raised by revenue, dismiss the same. 12. Ground Nos.3 4 Disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D. 12.1 In these grounds (supra), Revenue assails the decision of the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 2,65,27,250 made by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A r. w. Rule 8D. As per the details on record before us, in the year under consideration, the assessee earned tax exempt income of ₹ 3,19,10,479 as interest on tax free bonds and dividend of ₹ 8,09,65,535. The assessee had made a suo moto disallowance of ₹ 3,89,646 u/s.14A of the Act on account of expenditure incurred to earn such exempt income. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee is not as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act and therefore invoking the provisions of Rule 8D computed the disallowance thereunder at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness and the expenditure is of fixed in nature. Therefore, there is no expenditure incurred directly by the bank for earning any tax free income. Since the expenditure would have been incurred by the bank even without the earning of tax free income, no part of the expenditure can be related to earning the tax free income. In the light of the above undisputed fact and in view of the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that no disallowance can be made u/s.14A of the Act. The addition made in this regard is directed to be deleted. The relevant grounds of appeal of the Assessee are allowed. 12.4.2 Following the above decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2008-09 (supra), we uphold the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) and consequently dismiss ground Nos.3 4 of Revenue s appeal. 13. Ground No.5 - Applicability of Sec. 115JB of the Act to Banking Companies. 13.1 In this ground (supra), Revenue assails the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) for holding that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to Banking companies. 13.2.1 W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 578/Hyd/2010 and ITAT Mumbai in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 10.10.2012 in ITA No.2398/Mum/2009. 97. The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 98. We have considered the rival submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee. We find that this issue was considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Krung Thai Bank (supra) and on the above issue held as follows:- 5. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contends that the provisions of MAT do not apply to the assessee, and , for this reason, very foundation of impugned reassessment proceedings is devoid of legally sustainable merits. His line of reasoning is this. The provisions of MAT can come into play only when the assessee prepares its profit and loss account in accordance with Schedule VI to the Companies Act .It is pointed out that , in terms of the provisions of Section 115JB(2),every assessee is required to prepare its profit and loss account in terms of the provisions of Part II and II I of Schedule VI to the Companies Act . Unless the profit and loss is so prepared, the provisions of Section 115 JB cannot come into play at all. However, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the plea of the assessee in this regard. Consequently, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is also allowed. 54. Since the provisions of sec. 115JB of the Act are not applicable to banking companies as held by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the computation of books profits made by the AO cannot be sustained. Consequently ground No.6 raised by the Assessee is allowed. Ground No.7 does not require adjudication in view of the conclusion on ground No.6 that provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act do not apply to banking companies. 13.2.2 Following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2008-09 (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with or deviate from the finding rendered by the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue. Consequently, Ground No.5 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 14. Ground No.6 being general in nature, no adjudication is called for. 15. In the result, Revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2011-12 Assessee's appeal in ITA No.1647/Bang/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 16. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -11 (supra); wherein we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the assessee's own case reported in (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). Respectfully following the same, in this year also, the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 19. Ground No.3 (3.1 3.2) Disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 19.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee assails the orders of the authorities below in disallowing its claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to ₹ 244,40,27,648. 19.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the facts and circumstances of the case raised in this ground are similar to that raised by the assessee in Ground No.4 of its appeal in ITA No.1284/Bang/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 (supra); wherein we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT, Bang]. Respectfully following the same, in this year also, the Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Andhra Bank reported in 2014 (7) TMI 904 (ITAT, Hyd.) deleted the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer. Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue. 23.2.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncement cited. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of the case of Andhra Bank (supra). In that case also, on similar facts as in the case on hand; the Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction only to the extent of the amount debited to the profit and loss account and disallowed the rest and the CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance; the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench dismissed Revenue s appeal on this issue holding as under at para 10 thereof - 10. We heard both sides and perused the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities and other material available on record. It is on the ground that part of the payments to pension and gratuity have not been routed through the Profit Loss Account that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned disallowance in terms of S. 43B of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that the payment r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the learned CIT (Appeals) and consequently dismiss ground No.4 raised by Revenue. 26. Ground No.5 Applicability of provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act. In this ground (supra), Revenue assails the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in holding that the provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act are not applicable to Banking companies. On a perusal of the record before us, we find that the facts and circumstances on this issue / ground are similar to those in Ground No.5 raised by Revenue in its appeal in ITA No.1252/Bang/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11. In that appeal (supra), we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against revenue. Respectfully following the same, in this year also, we uphold the view of the learned CIT (Appeals) and consequently dismiss Ground No.5 raised by Revenue. 27. In the result, Revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2012-13 Assessee's appeal in ITA No.915/Bang/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 28. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neral in nature and therefore no adjudication is called for. 30. Ground NO.2 (2.1 to 2.6) - Bad Debts Written Off. In this ground (supra), the assessee assails the learned CIT (Appeals) decision in upholding the disallowance of bad debts written off amounting to ₹ 183,55,58,987. On a perusal of the record before us, we find that the facts and circumstances of this issue / ground are similar to Ground No.2 raised by the assessee in its appeal in ITA No.1284/Bang/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11. In that appeal (supra), we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against revenue. Following the same, in this year also, we reverse the decision of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue and consequently allow the ground No.2 raised by the assessee. 31. Ground No.3 (3.1 to 3.2) Disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia). 31.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the learned CIT (Appeals) order in upholding the disallowance u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to ₹ 245,67,41,898. On a perusal of the record before us, we find that the facts and circumstances of this issue / ground are similar to Ground No.2 raised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. 33. Ground No.5. This Ground (supra) is a protective ground and alternate to Ground No.2 of Revenue s appeal in ITA No.1651/Bang/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12. Since we have dismissed that ground in Revenue s appeal (supra), this ground raised by the assessee does not survive for consideration, thereby rendered infrutuous and accordingly dismissed. 34. In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed. Revenue s appeal in ITA No.845/Bang/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 35. In this appeal, revenue has raised the following grounds :- 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction made by the assessee towards depreciation on HTM securities on the facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ING Vysya Bank Vs. CIT (2012) 208 Taxmann 511 and pendency of the issue of depreciation on HTM category securities before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Sec. 115JB of the Act are not applicable to banking companies. 4. Any other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
