2021 (9) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "A" Bench, in I.T.A.Nos.780/Mds/2001 and 781/Mds/2001, for the Assessment Years 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. 2.The appeals were admitted on 02.02.2016 to decide the following substantial questions of law : "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the addition on interest on securities for the assessment year 1990-91 amounting to Rs. 29,89,48,379/- was not liable to tax? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that loss on revaluation of securities amounting to Rs. 14,89,42,190/- was held as trading assets in order to claim ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the loss on revaluation of securities is to be allowed irrespective of the fact that the assessee had valued the investment at cost price in its book but however for the Income Tax purposes valuation was made as cost price or market price whichever is lower? 4.Whether the assessee bank could follow one method of accounting and different method for tax purposes while claiming deduction of loss which was entirely notional in nature which had accrued and had not been written off in its book?" 3.T.C.A.No.907 of 2015 was admitted on 23.11.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the additions of Rs. 11,73,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rst substantial question of law framed for consideration in the case of City Union Bank Ltd. and it was held in favour of the assessee in the following terms: "4.1. With regard to the first substantial question of law raised in T.C.(A).No.22 of 2004 and the first substantial question of law raised in T.C.(A).No.466 of 2004, the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dt. 23rd Jan., 2007 made in T.C.(A).Nos.15 and 24 of 2003, CIT vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., [reported at (2007) 209 CTR (Mad) 250-Ed.], after referring to the decisions in CIT vs. Canara Bank (1991) 100 CTR (Kar) 207: (1992) 195 ITR 66 (Jkar), CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC), H.M.Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd., vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 706 (Bom), Poona El....