O/TAXAP/307/2015 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 307 of 2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 RAJKOT Appellant(s) Versus RAJKOT NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED Opponent(s) Appearance: MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE for Appellant(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 24/04/2015 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot dated 12.12.2014 passed in ITA No.1180/RJT/2010 for A.Y. 2007-2008 by which, relying upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-II V/s. Rajkot Dist.Co-op. Bank Ltd. dated 10.02.2014 passed in Tax Appeal No.56 of 2013, learned Tribunal has allowed said appeal preferred by assessee and has held that loss on amortization of securities, as claimed by assessee, is allowable, Revenue has preferred present tax appeal with following substantial questions of law:- (A) Whether in facts and circumstances of case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is justified in Page 1 of 3 O/TAXAP/307/2015 ORDER holding that A.O. and CIT(A) have erred in disallowing amortization of security premium of Rs.2,41,13,914/-? (B) Whether in facts and circumstances of case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is justified in not considering that securities held under Held to maturity (HTM) category as per RBI guidelines are not meant to earn profit but are required to be kept as they are till maturity? 2. We have heard Shri Pranav Desai, learned counsel appearing for Revenue and Shri R.K. Patel, learned advocate, who is reported to be on caveat. 2.1. It is undisputed that as such, so far as this Court is concerned, issue raised in present tax appeal is concluded against Revenue and in favour of assessee. identical question came to be considered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajkot Dist.Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra) and considering paragraph (vii) of CBDT Circular No.17 of 2008, it is held that assessee is entitled to amortization of security premium, as claimed. Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing for Revenue is not in position to point out any contrary decision to aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court. 2.2. In view of above binding decision of Division Bench of this Court and for reasons stated in said decision in case of Rajkot Dist.Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra), present appeal deserves to be dismissed and questions raised in present tax appeal are required to be answered against Revenue and in favour of assessee. It cannot be said that learned Tribunal has committed any error in Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/307/2015 ORDER allowing appeal preferred by assessee and in holding that amortization of security premium, as claimed by assessee, is allowable, more particularly, while relying upon binding decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajkot Dist.Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra). 3. Under circumstances, present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R.SHAH, J.) (S.H.VORA, J.) Hitesh Page 3 of 3 Commissioner of Income-tax 2, Rajkot v. Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited