Held-to-maturity investment diminution deduction upheld where verification of quantum and valuation method was still required.

Deduction for diminution in value of held-to-maturity investments was accepted on the basis of the jurisdictional High Court's view, and the first appellate authority's remand was confined to verification of the quantum, valuation method, and consistency of application before relief was granted. That verification-based direction was found proper, as no infirmity was shown in allowing the Assessing Officer to examine the depreciation or diminution claim. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the remand order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee bank was entitled to deduction for diminution in value of held-to-maturity investments, and whether the direction of the first appellate authority remanding the matter for verification required interference.

Analysis: The jurisdictional High Court had already held that the assessee was entitled to deduction on account of diminution in value of investments in held-to-maturity category. The first appellate authority merely restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the quantum of depreciation or diminution, the valuation method, and consistency in application of the method before granting relief. No infirmity was found in that direction.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the remand direction allowing verification of the claim was upheld.

---