Ita/86/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichur v. The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trichur
High Court
17 Dec 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/86/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichur v. The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trichur
Date of order
17 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
1998-99, 2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/86/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichur v. The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trichur, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The question of law is answered in favour of theassessee-Bank and against the Revenue.The appeal stands dismissed, leaving the parties tosuffer their respective costs in these appeals.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
I.T.A.No.550 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 1197/COCH/2004 DATED 29-12-2006 OF I.T.A. TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH.
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX.
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:
M/S. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TAXATION DEPARTMENT, HEAD OFFICE, NAIKANAL, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.86/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA.550 of 2009 &
86 of 2012
- 2 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
I.T.A.No.86 of 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 133/COCH/2009 DATED 30-12-2011OF I.T.A. TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH
APPELLANT/APPELLANT:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE DHANALEKSHMI BANK LTD.,NAIKKANAL, TRICHUR-680001.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.550/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
[ ITA 550/2009, ITA.86/2012 ]
Vinod Chandran,J.
The issue arising in both these appeals are withrespect to the appreciation of trading assets and the mannerin which the value has to be credited to the profit and lossaccount. The assessee-Bank admittedly engages inter alia inmaking investments by way of purchasing securities. They arealso treated as trading assets of the Bank. The questionraised is as to the value to be taken when the securitiesappreciate in their market value.2. The issue has been considered by this Court inCITv. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. [(2003) 264 ITR 545 (Ker.)] andCITv. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [(2011) 339 ITR 606 (Ker.)].There the question was with respect to the valuation ofsecurities when there is a claim raised of depreciation orloss. This Court had approved the measure adopted by theassessee-Banks following the stipulations made by the ReserveBank of India. RBI had directed the security to be valued atmarket price or cost price, whichever is lower. Thestipulation was brought in force, to ensure that the Banks donot claim escalated book profits. Though in the present case
ITA.550 of 2009 & 86 of 2012
- 4 -
a contrary situation has arisen, where there is anappreciation of the value of the security, the dictumsquarely applies. Even when there is an appreciation of thevalue, it does not enure to the Bank as income and, hence,the valuation has to be made as stipulated by the RBI; at themarket price or cost price, whichever is lower. Hence, thevaluation carried out by the Bank at the cost price has to beaccepted. The question of law is answered in favour of theassessee-Bank and against the Revenue.The appeal stands dismissed, leaving the parties tosuffer their respective costs in these appeals.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
ASHOK MENONJUDGE
APPENDIX OF ITA 550/2009
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT DATED 16.11.2000.
ANNEXURE B
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ITA NO.15/RI/JC/TCR/CIT-V/2000-01 DATED 10.09.2004.
ANNEXURE C
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO.1197/COCH/2004 DATED 29.12.2006.
APPENDIX OF ITA 86/2012
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-ACOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/3/2008
ANNEXURE-B
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
ASHOK MENONJUDGE
APPENDIX OF ITA 550/2009
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT DATED 16.11.2000.
ANNEXURE B
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ITA NO.15/RI/JC/TCR/CIT-V/2000-01 DATED 10.09.2004.
ANNEXURE C
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO.1197/COCH/2004 DATED 29.12.2006.
APPENDIX OF ITA 86/2012
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-ACOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/3/2008
ANNEXURE-B
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 21/11/2008.
ANNEXURE-C
COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31/12/2011.
Vku/-
[true copy]
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.