TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... him. The Ld. A.O. disallowed the claim of Amortization on Govt. securities, investments known as SLR Investments, Depreciation on Govt. Securities, provision for valuation of Non-SLR category and broken period interest. The RBI guidelines on valuation of Govt. Securities and amortization are based on theory of 'Real Income' being "sine qua non" for computation of taxable income under I. T. Act, 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. of the claim of depreciation on Government Securities shifted from AFS to HTM Securities of Rs. 2,46,01,000/- holding that RBI Guidelines could not override the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) was under obligation to honour the C.B.D.T. instructions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Lord Krishna Bank case in this respect. The claim be allowed. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. of the claim of Premium Amortization of Rs. 41,49,000/- holding that RBI Guidelines could not override th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative did not press grounds of appeal Nos.1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, so they are dismissed as not pressed. Similar issues in other appeals are also not pressed, so same are also dismissed as not pressed. 4. The learned Authorized Representative pointed out that the issues in ground Nos.2, 3 and 4 of assessee's appeals are covered in favour of the assessee by the order of ITAT, Pune Bench 'A' in ITA No.449/PN/2012 vide order dated 05.08.2013 in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Kallappanna Awade Ichalkaranji Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., wherein, the similar issues were decided by the Pune Bench 'B' in favour of assessee by observing as under: "10. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Nahsik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Supra). We find the Tribunal has discussed the issue and dismissed the grounds rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commercial principles. As per the extant RBI guidelines dated 01-07-2009 the investment portfolio of the banks is required to be classified under 3 categories viz., Held the maturity HTM), Held for Trading (HFT) and Available for Sale (AFS). The value of each kind of investment is to be done in the following manner: Sr.No. Classification Valuation Norms of Investment. 1. HTM These are carried at acquisition cost unless the cost is more than the face value, in which case the premium should be amortised over the period remaining to maturity. The premium is required to be amortised over the period remaining to maturity. This apart, any permanent diminution in value shall FV shall go on to reduce cost of the investment. 2. AFS The individual scrips in the Available for Sale category will be marked to market at quarterly or at more frequent intervals. These investments are considered to form stock-in-trade of a bank and therefore are to be valued at cost or NRV, whichever is less. Fall in value below cost, therefore, is to be provided immediately, however any net appreciation in value is ignored and not recognized as income on the basis of conservatism. 3. HFT The individual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght to our notice against the above cited decision we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition. Accordingly, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed." 4.1 Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge. Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same. Similar issue arose in other appeals of assessee. Facts being similar in other assessee's appeal, so following the same reasoning corresponding issue in other appeals of assessee are also decided in favour of assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 5. Issue in ground No.10 pertains to interest liability u/s.234B & 234C of Act which is consequential of outcome of other issue. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. As a result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. 6. In ITA No.1454/PN/2012, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the finding of the A.O. that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the broken period interest of Rs. 40,56,936/- claimed by the appellant being allowable deduction. It be allowed accordingly. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of Investment Fluctuation Fund. The same being legally allowable it be allowed accordingly. 8) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by A. O. of Rs. 75,00,000/- being claim of Amortization cost of acquisition. The same be allowed in full. 9) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the A. 0. of an amount of Rs. 91,444/- holding it as prior period expenses. The claim be allowed. 10) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 26,500/- made by A.O. invoking S. 40(a)(i-a) of the Act. Since the expenditure was paid during the year itself S. 40(a)(i-a) was not attracted. The disallowance be delete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstructions No. 17/2008 dt. 26-11-2008 where the CBDT has mandated the Deptt. to refer to latest RBI Guidelines for allowing the concerned claims. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the finding of the A.O. that the RBI Guidelines are not binding on the Income-tax Department. The reliance placed on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court judgment was misplaced as they simply dealt in the issue of NBFCS concerning RBI Guidelines 1998 for write off of NPA's which did not apply to Banks. The Board Circular No. 665 did apply which held RBI instructions were binding on the Department. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (2011) 55 DTR (Ker) 277 held such RBI guidelines were binding. It be held accordingly. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. of the claim of depreciation on Government Securities shifted from AFS to AFT to HTM Securities of Rs. 2,46,01,000/- holding that RBI Guidelines could not override the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) was under o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing allowable deduction. It be allowed accordingly. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and following the ITAT Mumbai Bench decision in Dy. CIT v. Banque Indosuez & Ors. (and vice versa) (2012) 19 UR (Trib) 463 (Mumbai) where it has been held that the Broken period interest was an allowable deduction. It be held accordingly. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and following Hon'ble Bombay High Court Judgment reported as Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Credit Suisie First Bosten (Cyprus) Ltd. (2012) 76 DTR (Bom) 215 it be held that right to receive interest on Govt. Securities vests in the holder only on the due date mentioned in the securities and consequently interest on securities accrues only on the due date and not on any other date. The contention that interest accrues for broken period between two consecutive dates stipulated in the agreement for payment of interest has no basis in law. Therefore, addition sustained on account of 'broken period interest' is illegal and it be quashed. 11. n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim of depreciation on government securities shifted from AFS to HTM Securities at the beginning of the year. This issue has been discussed and decided in ITA No.103/PN/2012 vide para 4 of this order. Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, the issue has been decided in favour of assessee. 11. Issue in ground No.18 pertains to interest liability u/s.234B & 234C of Act which is consequential of outcome of other issue. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 12. In ITA No.2194/PN/2012, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,11,21,000/- on account of claim of amortization of premium paid for acquisition of HTM securities made by the A.O, which is on misconception of law holding that there is no provision in the Income-tax Act, to allow amortization of premium as deduction either in the year of acquisition or over the period of maturity. The Ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order confirming the disallowance a 'speaking order' providing correct and sound reasons. The disallowance be deleted. 2) On the facts and circums....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction which is invalid. The assessment completed without jurisdiction be quashed. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,96,69,614/- holding that the provision made of Rs. 2,41,69,614/- was in excess by Rs. 45,00,000/- The provision of Rs. 2,41,69,614/- having correctly made u/s 36(l)(vii-a) was allowable in view of judicial precedent /pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank case / (supra). The disallowance being against law be deleted. 8) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B is not justified and in the circumstances it be deleted. 9) The appellant craves/leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal. 13. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative did not pressed the grounds of appeal Nos.5, 6 and 7, so they are dismissed as not pressed. The other grounds of appeal with regard to claim of premium on acquisition of government securities. This issue has been discussed and decided in ITA No.103/PN/2012 vide para 4 of this order. Facts being similar, so following the same....