2019 (1) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als and then answer it, which would lead to the disposal of the appeals as such. The questions of law re-framed are as follows: I) Whether the bad debts written off, for nonrural branches claimed under clause (vii) of Section 36(1) has to be allowed only in excess of the provision made for rural branches under clause (viia) of Section 36(1) ? II) Whether depreciation or loss on revaluation of securities can be permitted on the basis of the market value or cost price, whichever is less, as stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India ? III) In determining the provision for bad debts under Section 36(1)(viia), has the non-rural branches to be determined on the basis of a revenue village and the population thereat ? IV) Whether the interest....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....excess allowed from the provision made, and deduction allowed, for non-rural branches. We make it clear that in making the computation, there can be no consideration of the provision for bad debts for rural branches as granted under clause (viia) of Section 36(1). Hence, the first question in I.T.A.Nos.352, 769, 872 & 815 of 2009 and I.T.A.No.38/2011 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 3. On depreciation or loss; the issue of revaluation of securities is covered by [2003] 264 ITR 545 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and [2011] 339 ITR 606 (Ker), C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. This Court had held that revaluation of securities can be only on the basis of market value or cost price, whichever is lesser, as s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal. The assessee had also not taken up such a contention before any of the authorities. In such circumstances, the assessee cannot be permitted to take that contention at this stage, especially when there is no appeal filed by the assessee. We hence refuse to look into the said contention. 6. The fourth question also stands covered in favour of the assessee as per the decision of this Court in [2008] 301 ITR 188 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Federal Bank Ltd. The S.L.P. from the aforesaid decision numbered as S.L.P.(CC) No.17071/2008 also stands dismissed. Hence, this question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.Nos.769, 815, 817 and 1287 of 2009. 7. On the fifth question, another Division Bench of this Court h....