https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405413 The court remitted the issue of eligibility of revenue expenditure on computerization of branches back for fresh consideration, finding the tribunal's order lacking reasoning. It upheld the deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) despite no income from rural branches. The court ruled against amortization of investment cost over face value of securities and determined that Section 115JB applied to the banking company. The appeal was disposed of, quashing the tribunal's decision on the first issue and remanding it for reconsideration, while affirming decisions in favor of the revenue on the second and fourth issues and against the revenue on the third issue. en-us Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Mar 2021 13:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405413 The court remitted the issue of eligibility of revenue expenditure on computerization of branches back for fresh consideration, finding the tribunal's order lacking reasoning. It upheld the deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) despite no income from rural branches. The court ruled against amortization of investment cost over face value of securities and determined that Section 115JB applied to the banking company. The appeal was disposed of, quashing the tribunal's decision on the first issue and remanding it for reconsideration, while affirming decisions in favor of the revenue on the second and fourth issues and against the revenue on the third issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405413