<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (7) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21216</link>
    <description>A bank can claim valuation loss on shares and securities only if the lower-of-cost-or-market method is consistently followed in its regular accounts; it cannot adopt a different basis solely for tax computation. The court noted that section 145 requires income to be computed according to the method of accounting regularly employed, and that selective invocation of commercial stock-valuation rules is not permissible. Because the bank had not valued its investments on that basis in its books, the claimed loss was treated as merely notional and not deductible. The revisional order was therefore upheld and the reference was answered against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21216</link>
      <description>A bank can claim valuation loss on shares and securities only if the lower-of-cost-or-market method is consistently followed in its regular accounts; it cannot adopt a different basis solely for tax computation. The court noted that section 145 requires income to be computed according to the method of accounting regularly employed, and that selective invocation of commercial stock-valuation rules is not permissible. Because the bank had not valued its investments on that basis in its books, the claimed loss was treated as merely notional and not deductible. The revisional order was therefore upheld and the reference was answered against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>