TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value of stock-in-trade, were CBDT instruction states that provision created by Banks on different accounts cannot constitute deductible expenditure for the purpose of Income-tax, hence provision for standard asset is not allowable for deduction under I.T. Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition on account of Provision for Investment Depreciation Reserve on the ground that it is deductible expenditure, the loss incurred by the Bank due to fraud, embezzlement of funds at the time of investment in Bonds is being written off in phased manner over a period of three years from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11, when the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting constantly over the years, where expenditure to be allowed in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the value of stock-in-trade and the same is allowable u/s. 28(1) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by this, Revenue is before us. 5. Learned DR relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer. Counsel had nothing to add to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue before us is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Nainital (supra), which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, no interference is called for. First grievance is dismissed. 7. The second grievance relates to the deletion of addition on account of loss incurred by bank due to fraud. 8. This issue has been considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted the claim of deduction of Rs. 15.82 crores and added to the returned income of the assessee. The assessee strongly agitated this issue before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its contentions. After considering the facts in issue and the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that there has been embezzlement of bank funds. Shares and securities which were not traded through any recognized stock-exchange. This embezzlement of funds were done by the employees of the bank in connivance with some brokers. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the Assessing Officer himself has accepted the loss for A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10. Therefore, there was no reason for taking different view for the year under consideration. Regarding the year,....