Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal allows deduction for amortization of premium on Govt Securities while upholding disallowance for inter-branch adjustments.</h1> <h3>Suvarnyug Sahkari Bank Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle -6, Pune</h3> Suvarnyug Sahkari Bank Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle -6, Pune - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Rs.14,50,000/- debited to Profit & Loss Account on account of provision for inter-branch and inter-bank adjustment.2. Addition of Rs.36,62,956/- being amortization of premium paid on purchase of Government Securities.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs.14,50,000/- for Provision for Inter-branch and Inter-bank AdjustmentThe assessee, a cooperative society engaged in banking, filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.4,55,50,220/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the total income at Rs.5,10,68,176/- by making various disallowances/additions, including Rs.14,50,000/- debited to the Profit & Loss Account for provision for inter-branch and inter-bank adjustments. This provision was made on 31.03.2008 pending reconciliation of inter-branch and inter-bank accounts as per the advice of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the provision was for expenditure relating to a particular accounting period but not falling due on the date of the financial statement. The CIT(A) emphasized that a provision for expenditure could be allowed as a deduction only if the liability had accrued as of the date of making the provision and it was not a contingent liability. The CIT(A) further noted that under mercantile law accrual system, a provision for expenditure could be made only when the liability had accrued.The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the provision made by the assessee was premature as the reconciliation of the inter-branch and inter-bank entries was pending as of 31.03.2008. It was deemed a contingent liability or notional loss, which could not be allowed as expenditure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT, which held that RBI guidelines do not govern the computation of taxable income under the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the provision.Issue 2: Addition of Rs.36,62,956/- for Amortization of Premium Paid on Purchase of Government SecuritiesThe assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.36,62,956/- for amortization of the premium paid on acquisition of Held to Maturity (HTM) securities, as per RBI guidelines. The AO disallowed this claim, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that the issue was covered in its favor by previous ITAT decisions, including ACIT Vs. Pune Peoples Cooperative Bank and ACIT Vs. Alibag Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. The Tribunal noted that with the advent of section 80P(4) w.e.f. A.Y. 2007-08, cooperative banks could no longer claim the benefit of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i). However, they should be assessed as normal banking companies.The Tribunal referred to RBI guidelines and CBDT Instruction No.17 of 2008, which state that investments classified under HTM should be carried at acquisition cost unless the cost exceeds the face value, in which case the premium should be amortized over the period remaining to maturity. The Tribunal cited the ITAT Mumbai Bench decision in ACIT vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., which held that the premium paid in excess of face value of investments classified under HTM and amortized over the period till maturity is allowable as revenue expenditure.Following these precedents, the Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs.36,62,956/-, as the amount was of the nature of revenue expenditure and allowable as business expenditure u/s.36(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal upholding the disallowance of Rs.14,50,000/- for provision for inter-branch and inter-bank adjustment and allowing the deduction of Rs.36,62,956/- for amortization of premium paid on purchase of Government Securities.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found