TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon ble Supreme Court is that the investments remained at the end of the year has to be treated as stock-in-trade and the settled principle is that the stock-in-trade should be valued at lower of cost or market value. Similar are the facts in assessee s case. Claim of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) - The issue is squarely covered by Co-ordinate Bench decision of ITAT in assessee s own case in [ 2019 (3) TMI 1002 - ITAT CHENNAI] for assessment year 2007-08 and moreover this issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of PCIT vs. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank [ 2018 (5) TMI 903 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - In view of the above, both the issues are covered, as noted above, the issue cannot be taken up und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/Try/2017-18 dated 01.11.2017. Subsequently, the DCIT, Circle 2(1), Trichy moved an application of rectification u/s.154 of the Act, dated 14.12.2007 and notice u/s.154 of the Act was issued dated 12.02.2018 and the CIT(A)-1, Tiruchirapalli passed order in appeal No.154/CIT(A)- 1/Try/2018-19 dated 18.05.2018 (impugned order now). 2. The first issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in upholding the issues (i) depreciation on investment and (ii) deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act, as highly debatable and does not fall under the mistake apparent from record. For this, Revenue has raised Ground Nos.6, 7 9 as under:- 6. The Ld.CIT(A) erred and failed to appreciate that non following of Instruction No.17/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing two issues:- (i). The appellant bank failed to classify the investments under HTM, AFS HFT categories as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines and failed to set off appreciation against the depreciation thereby claiming excess depreciation. (ii). Claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) on the Aggregate Average Rural Advances instead of incremental advance. The ld.AR stated that the CIT(A) categorically held that both the issues are debatable and they cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record, rectifiable u/s.154 of the Act. He stated that both the issues on merits are covered in favour of assessee bank and these issues have been raised and decided by CIT(A) on the material placed by assessee either during assessment proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 ITR (Trib) 26. The ld.AR stated on merits that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Nawanshahar Central Co-opertive Bank Ltd., [2007] 289 ITR 6 (SC), wherein the Board Circular No.18/2015 dated 02.11.2015 has clarified that the investments held by the banking concern are part of business of banking and therefore, the income from the same is taxable under the head profits and gains of business . According to him, the natural corollary of the circular and the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court is that the investments remained at the end of the year has to be treated as stock-in-trade and the settled principle is that the stock-in-trade should be valued at lower of cost or market value. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
