TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) upheld the disallowance made by the AO - HELD THAT:- Following the consistent orders passed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, which have been confirmed by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court [ 2016 (8) TMI 1441 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided this issue against the assessee, hence ground No.2 is decided against the assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that in the instant case disallowance to the extent of 1% of the exempt income under section 14A is to be made. So we accordingly direct the AO to disallow 1% of the exempt income under section 14A. Disallowance claimed by the assessee on account of depreciation on leased assets - HELD THAT:- Following the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2003-04 2004-05, we are of the considered view that since the issue has already been decided against the assessee of the assessee s appeal are decided against the assessee. Disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) qua write off of non rural advances - HELD THAT:- By following the various decisions rendered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04 to A.Y. 2004-05 [ 2021 (10) TMI 608 - ITAT MUMBAI ] by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of American Express International Banking Corporation [ 2002 (9) TMI 96 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] by considering the decision rendered by case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. [ 1990 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT ] No distinguishing facts have been brought on record by the Ld. D.R., hence we find no scope to interfere into the findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground No.4 is also determined against the Revenue. Allowance of taxing of interest on securities on due basis - assessee bank has been following mercantile system of accounting and as such interest on securities is to be accounted for on accrual basis while arriving at the book profit - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2001-02 we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. Security as stock in trade and loss on revaluation as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal from A.Y. 1996-97 to A.Y. 2004-05 and order passed by the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 14A. 3.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the investment in subsidiaries while computing the amount of 0.5% of average investment. 4.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the appellant's claim in respect of depreciation of ₹ 50,71,44,257 on leased assets. 4.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the genuineness of the lease agreement was not proved and it was a sham agreement to give colour of finance lease. 4.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the lease transactions is not even a case of finance lease but a mere case of advancing of loan and the lessee was the actual or real owner. 5.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of ₹ 1050,55,44,005 under section 36(l)(vii) being the amount of bad debts written-off (other than in respect of rural advances). 5.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on explanation 2 to section 36(l)(viia) as proposed by the Finance Bill 2013 which is applicable from assessment years 2014-15 onwards. 6 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal. ITA No.4951/M/2013 (Revenue) 1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowances of ₹ 71.76 lakhs incurred by the assessee on reservation of seats in the schools for the children of the bank officers without appreciating that the amount was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. 3. (a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D 2(ii) is called for, thereby granting relief to the assessee, overlooking the fact that the AO had correctly made the disallowance, as the assessee could not establish the nexus between its own funds and investments made in tax-free income. (b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance under section 14A of the IT Act to ₹ 46.35 crore without giving any specific reason and overlooking th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance of depreciation on matured securities, disallowance of expenses under section 14A read with rule 8D, disallowance of depreciation on leased assets, right of bad debts, in respect of non rural expenses, reducing depreciation/taxing depreciation in the value of securities held as available for sale and held for trading respectively and thereby framed the assessment at the total income of ₹ 60,30,95,04,270/-. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing the appeal who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order both the assessee as well as Revenue have come up before the Tribunal by way of filing cross appeals. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. Ground No.1 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee s appeal) 6. The AO made addition of ₹ 58,44,167/- on account of deffered payment guarantee commission on the ground that since the assessee has received the entire deffered payment guarant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has given effect to the order of the Tribunal and has allowed the deduction for deferred payment guarantee commission for the assessment year 1984- 85 to 1989-90 and 1996-97. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Ground no.2, is allowed. 9. So following the consistent view taken by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the issue in controversy right from A.Y. 1984-85, we are of the considered view that the entire deffered payment guarantee commission though received in advance by the assessee bank cannot be taxed during the year of receipt but has to be spread to the relevant years to which it belongs. We fail to understand when the issue is no longer res-integra having been decided by the Tribunal numerous times in favour of the assessee and order decided by the Tribunal has also been given effect to, then why the issue has been raised time and again only for the purpose of generating unnecessary litigation. So ground No.1 of assessee s appeal is allowed. Ground No.2 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee s appeal) 10. The AO made a disallowance of ₹ 1,22,38,98,858/- on account of disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was contended before the A.O. that in some cases, the companies or the State Governments who had issued the relevant securities were not able to pay the amount due on redemption. The appellant treats these securities as non- performing assets and a provision is made at a certain percentage for diminution in their value as in the case of other non-performing assets. There may be some delay on the part of the companies or the State Governments in paying the redemption amount. But, whenever the payment would be made it cannot be expected to be less than the face value. On the date of maturity, the whole of the amount of redemption money becomes due under the mercantile system of accounting followed by the appellant unless a portion of this amount is written off as bad debt. It is a real income and hence has to be taxed as such under the mercantile system followed by the appellant. Reliance in this regard is placed on State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT 158 ITR 102, 155 (SC) which was followed in Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 206 ITR 359 (Bom). It was held in this decision that the concept of real income should not be so read as to defeat the provisions of the Act. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and become due for redemption during the year but were not redeemed. It was contended before the A.O. that in some cases, the companies or the State Governments who had issued the relevant securities were not able to pay the amount due on redemption. The appellant treats these securities as nonperforming assets and a provision is made at a certain percentage for diminution in their value as in the case of other non-performing assets. There may be some delay on the part of the companies or the State Governments in paying the redemption amount. But, whenever the payment would be made it cannot be expected to be less than the face value. On the date of maturity, the whole of the amount of redemption money becomes due under the mercantile system of accounting followed by the appellant unless a portion of this amount is written off as bad debt. It is a real income and hence has to be taxed as such under the mercantile system followed by the appellant. Reliance in this regard is placed on State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT 158 ITR 102, 155 (SC) which was Travancore vs. CIT 158 ITR 102, 155 (SC) followed in Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 206 ITR 359 (Bom). ITR 359 (Bom). It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. 12. So following the consistent orders passed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, which have been confirmed by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 passed in ITA No.271 of 2014 available at page 452 to 457 of the paper book, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided this issue against the assessee, hence ground No.2 is decided against the assessee. Ground No.3 of Assessee s appeal (ITA No.3685/M/2013) A.Y. 2005-06 Ground No.3 of Revenue s appeal (ITA No.4951/M/2013) A.Y. 2005-06 13. The AO made disallowance of ₹ 46,35,85,591/- claimed by the assessee for earning exempt income under section 10(15)(iv)(c f), section 10(15)(iv)(h), 10(23G) by invoking the provisions contained under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. 14. However, on the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) by giving part relief to the assessee restricted the disallowance of ₹ 46,35,85,591/- which has been challenged both by the assessee as well as the revenue. 15. We have perused para 6.4 to 6.10 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), which shows that while deciding this issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of the Revenue is decided against the Revenue. Grounds No.4.1, 4.2 4.3 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee s appeal) 19. The AO made disallowance of ₹ 50,71,44,257/- claimed by the assessee on account of depreciation on leased assets, which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 20. We have perused the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal which is on identical issue having been decided against the assessee by returning the following findings: 7.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Both the parties mutually agreed that this issue is already covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Yrs. 2001-02 and 2002-03 vide order dated 12/07/2021. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 20. Ground no. 6, relates to depreciation of ₹ 165,18,13,363, on account of leased assets. 21. Having considered the submissions of the parties and having perused the material on record including the case laws relied upon, we find that the issue for our adjudication has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 6. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of ₹ 1026,23,30,375/-. 6.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of ₹ 1026,23,30,375 under section 36(1)(vii) being the amount of bad debts written-off (other than in respect of rural advances) 6.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on explanation 2 to section 36(1) as inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 which is applicable from assessment years 2014-15 onwards. 55. Brief facts are that the assessee has claimed write-off of bad debts in connection with non-rural advances under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to ₹ 1026,23,30,375/-by way of note 18 to the revised return of income. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee on the basis that deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is available towards rural and non-rural advances and in view of the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act is limited to excess of the amount written off over the credit balance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance following the order of the CIT(A) for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue has emphasised that deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is available to both rural and non-rural debts and accordingly, the restriction as per the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act is also applicable. The learned Counsel argued that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, a bank is eligible to avail deduction in respect of provision made for bad and doubtful debts, of an amount not exceeding 7.5% of total income and of an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of the bank. Accordingly, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction of an amount lower of the provision made for bad and doubtful debts or the amount calculated as per the prescribed methodology. As per the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act is limited to excess of the amount written off over the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts accounts made under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Further, as per section 36(2)(v) of the Act, where a debt made by the assessee to which section36(1)(viia) of the Act applies, no deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject to satisfaction of the requirements contemplated under Section 36(2). 58. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee: CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras) DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC) Punjab Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non- rural advances, is Clarificatory in nature. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC), wherein it was held that one established rule for interpretation of legislation is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. In the present case, the legislature stipulated a fixed date i.e. 01.04.2014 while inserting Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e materials available on record. We find that this issue has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y.2008-09 in ITA No.3644 4563/Mum/2016 vide order dated 03/02/2020 wherein it was observed as under:- 60. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing deduction claimed by assessee on account of reducing depreciation/ taxing appreciation in the value of securities held as Available For Sale(AFS) and Held For Trading(HFT) category. For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 7: - 7. Depreciation on securities The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in reducing deprecation/ taxing appreciation in the value of securities held as Available for Sale (AFS) ad Held for Trading (HFT) category. 61. Brief facts are that as per assessee from FY year 2004-05 the Bank has been valuing investments in 'Available for Sale' (AFS) and 'Held For Trading' (HFT) in books after netting off classification-wise depreciation and appreciation, computed scrip-wise and providing for net deprecation in each classif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Deutsche Bank AG. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the AO following the earlier years order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08. The Revenue before the Tribunal has emphasised on the applicability of Mumbai Tribunal s decision in the case of Deutsche Bank AG and that the valuation is as per RBI guidelines. It was contended by the assessee that it is a well settled principle of law that unrealised gains on stock are not to be brought to the tax net. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481 (SC), wherein it is held that profit cannot arise out of the valuation of the closing stock . The relevant extract of the judgement of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: While we agree with the conclusion that no part of the profits of the firm in the accounting year can be said to have accrued or arisen at Bikaner, the reasoning by which the learned Judges arrived at that conclusion seems to us, with all respect, to proceed on a misconception. It is wrong to assume that the valuation of the closing stock at market rate has, for its object, the bringing into charge any apprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For if the market value is higher than cost, the accounts will reflect notional profits not actually realised. On the other hand, if the market value is less, the assessee will get the benefit of a notional loss he has not incurred. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, the ordinary principles of commercial accounting permit valuation 'at cost or market price, whichever is the lower'. [para 27] The proper practice is to value the closing stock at cost. That will eliminate entries relating to the same stock from both sides of the account. To this rule custom recognises only one exemption and that is to value the stock at market value if that is lower. But on no principle can one justify the valuation of the closing stock at a market value higher than cost as that will result in the taxation of notional profits the assessee has not realised. [para 28] 65. In Sanjeev Wollen Mills vs. CIT [2005] 279 ITR 434 (SC), the Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the assessee had valued its finished goods at market value. For assessment year 1992-93, the opening stock was valued at ₹ 90 per kg (market price as on 1.4.1991 was ₹ 98 per kg) and the closing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bombay) CIT vs. Corpn. Bank Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 616 (Karnataka) Further, the issue was not disputed upto financial year 2003-04 and hence, the AO is not justified in taking a different view. 68. The assessee also relied on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 1977 of 2013. The assessee in this case for the purpose of its books was netting off the depreciation in its securities against appreciation in other securities while for tax purpose, the assessee has been claiming gross depreciation that is without netting of the appreciation in other securities held as a part of investment. The Bombay High Court has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It is argued that the facts of the present case are exactly same as in the aforesaid case of Union Bank of India. This issue stands covered by the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court. The facts of the assessee ‟ s case and the facts in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... settled as on the last day of the accounting year whereas any loss on such contracts was provided for by a charge in the profit and loss account on the best estimates. The Department brought to tax the profit on such forward exchange contracts and stated that one method for valuation of the entire stock of securities should be followed. This resulted in a situation of taxing appreciation of stock, which goes against the general and settled principle of non-taxation of notional income, as laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Wollen Mills vs. CIT [2005] 279 ITR 434 (SC) and others discussed supra. Hence, we are of the view that this disallowance of depreciation/ reducing of depreciation on appreciation in the value of securities held as available for sale and held for trading category are allowable. We direct the AO accordingly. 33.2. Respectfully following the same, the ground No.7 raised by the assessee is allowed. 29. Since this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2004-05 A.Y. 2008-09, which has been accepted by the Revenue, we are of the considered view that the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have erred in mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar direction. We order accordingly. Additional ground no.2r raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 16.2. Respectfully following the same, the additional ground No.2 is restored to the file of the ld. AO and allowed for statistical purposes. 33. Consequently, grounds No.7.1 7.2 are decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. Grounds No.8.1 8.2 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee s appeal) 34. The AO taxed the income earned by the assessee bank from its foreign branches, which is upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the impugned action of Ld. AO/ Ld. CIT(A) contended that this issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee in A.Y. 2003-04 2004-05 (supra) in assessee s own case by remitting the case back to the AO to decide afresh in view of the findings returned by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2001-02 2002-03. This fact has not been controverted by the Ld. D.R. 35. We have perused the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is on identical issue. By following the same, we restore this issue back to the AO to decide afresh in view of the directions given by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 1996-97 to 2000-01 and 2008-09. So Grounds No.8.1 8.2 are decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. Ground No.9 10 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee s appeal): 37. Grounds No.9 10 are general, hence need no findings. 38. Assessee by moving an application sought to raise the additional grounds of appeal, which have been opposed by the Ld. D.R. Application for raising additional grounds which are extracted in the preceding paras along with main grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, which are legal in nature, and can be raised at any stage of proceedings are allowed, to be decided as under: Additional Grounds No.1, 1.1, 1.2 1.3 of Assessee s appeal: 39. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the action of the AO in not allowing the deduction for the education cess on income tax paid for the year under consideration by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT (ITA No.17 of 2013). 40. Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness and thereby disallowed the same. 44. However, on the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) by following the order passed by his predecessor in the earlier year in assessee s own case, which had followed Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT 261 ITR 501 decided the issue in favour of the assessee, which is under challenge before the Tribunal. 45. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for A.Y. 1992-93 to A.Y. 1995-96 and relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the AO. 46. We have perused the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, which is on identical issue. The operative part thereof is extracted for ready perusal as under: 20.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Both the parties mutually agreed that this issue is already covered by the order of this Tribunal in assessee ‟ s own case for A.Yrs. 2001-02 and 2002-03 vide order dated 12/07/2021. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 47. During the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l years. Looking into the decisions, of the Hon. ITAT and my predecessors, I find that the issue of disallowability of BPI paid stands decided in Appellant's favour by my predecessors for the AYs 1997-98 to 2004-05. As I see, the decisions are. based on the decision of the Hon. Bombay High court in the case American Express International Banking Corpn. and the Hon. Supreme Court in the case Citi Bank (supra). The Hon. ITAT also has decided the issue in Appellant's favour for the AYs 1991-92 to 1995- 96. 8.3 The appellant's contention has been that all the securities are stock in trade and none of the securities are held as investments and profit on their purchase/sale is being offered consistently as Business income and not Capital Gain. 8.4 The Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case for A.Y. 1991-92 to 1994-95, para 8 held we find that a similar issue arose before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Bank (supra) wherein the Bombay High Court after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank held as under: The judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank had no appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not obtain a right to receive the same, it cannot be brought to tax merely because the assessee is found to be following the mercantile system of accounting. b. Section 145 cannot override section 5; just because the assessee-bank, which was following the mercantile system of accounting, made entries in the books of account taking credit for the interest on the government securities on a day-to-day basis, it cannot be held that the interest had accrued during the relevant previous year. c. Interest on Government securities accrues only on specified dates. If that is so, the assessment of the interest on Government securities in the present case merely on the basis of the entries made by the assessee in the books of account cannot be upheld as the interest does not represent interest accrued. (ii) Bank of Bahrain Kuwait (ITA No. 4404 1883/Mum/2004) (Mumbai Special Bench) (iii) CIT v. Federal Bank Ltd. (301 ITR 188) (Ker) (iv) Housing Development and Finance Corporation (98 ITD 319) (Mum); (v) State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur (74 ITD 203) (Jaipur); (vi) Punjab Sind Bank (239 ITR 343) (Del); (vii) Canara Bank (195 ITR 66) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 1st August 2016. Ground no. 2, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 54. Since the issue has already been set at rest by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal which has been confirmed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court for A.Y. 1996-97, we find no scope to interfere into the findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground No.5 is also determined against the Revenue. Ground No.6(a) 6(b) of Revenue s appeal (ITA No.4951/M/2013) A.Y. 2005-06 55. Revenue has challenged the allowance of assessee s appeal by Ld. CIT(A) by holding the security as stock in trade and loss on revaluation as revenue expenditure. 56. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal from A.Y. 1996-97 to A.Y. 2004-05 and order passed by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1996-97 and A.Y. 1997-98 has been confirmed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in favour of the assessee. 57. We have perused the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.09.2021 for A.Y. 2003-04 which is on identical issue and has been decided in favour of the assessee by returning the following findings: 20.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
