IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9 ITA No. 737/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel. versus PUNJAB & SIND BANK Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Sumit Lalchandani and Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER 18.09.2017 C.M. No. 31677/2017 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. No. 31676/2017 (delay) 2. For reasons stated therein, delay in filing appeal is condoned. 3. application is disposed of. ITA No. 737/2017 4. There are four issues urged by Revenue in this appeal directed against order dated 20th January 2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 4869/Del/2010 for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08, which read as under: A. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Ld. ITAT ITA No. 737/2017 Page 1 of 4 was correct in law in deleting addition of Rs. 35,20,25,056 made by AO on account of disallowance of amortization of premium paid on securities? B. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Ld. ITAT was correct in law in deleting addition of Rs. 27,16,60,199 made by AO on account of disallowance of depreciation on securities including loss of Rs. 9,83,66,579 on shifting of securities from AFS to HTM category? C. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Ld. ITAT was correct in la\\ in deleting addition of Rs. 38,02,52,097 made by AO on account of contribution made by Assessee to Punjab & Sind Bank Employees Pensions Fund Trust? D. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Ld. ITAT was correct in law in deleting additions to Assessee's book profit computed u1s l l5JB of Income Tax Act. 1961 on following counts? :- a. Rs.35,20,25,056 made by AO on account of disallowance of amortization of premium paid on securities. b. Rs. 27,16,60,199 made by AO on account of disallowance of depreciation on securities including loss of Rs. 9,83,66,579/- on shifting of securities from AFS to HTM category. c. Rs. 38,02,52,097 made by A0 on account of contribution made by Assessee to Punjab & Sind Bank Employees Pensions Fund Trust. 5. first issue, concerning deletion of addition of Rs. 35,20,25,056/- made by AO on account of disallowance of amortization of premium paid on securities, stands covered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue by decision dated 12th September 2012 of this Court in ITA No. 737/2017 Page 2 of 4 Assessee s own case, i.e. ITA No. 634 of 2009 (Punjab and Sind Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax) for AY 1996-97. Consequently, Court declines to frame any question on this issue. 6. second issue, concerning deletion of addition made by AO on account of disallowance of depreciation on securities including loss on shifting of securities from AFS to HTM category, also stands covered against Revenue by aforementioned decision dated 12th September 2012 in ITA No. 634 of 2009. 7. third issue pertains to correctness of order of ITAT in deleting addition of Rs. 38,02,52,097/- made by AO on account of contribution made by Assessee to Punjab & Sind Bank Employees Pensions Fund Trust. ITAT, in deciding issue in favour of Assessee, relied upon decision dated 6th March 2013 of Bombay High Court in ITA No. 2232 of 2011 (The Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Mumbai v. M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals). It is seen that Bombay High Court has in above order in turn relied on two orders passed by it dated 1st March 2013 in ITA No. 568 of 2012 (CIT v. Suashish Diamonds Ltd.) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Western India Paper & Board Mills (P) Limited (1991) 189 ITR 309 (Bom). Bombay High Court has, in its three orders, consistently held that, although contributions to pension funds may not be allowable under Section 36 (1) (iv) of Act, same is allowable under Section 37 of Act. 8. Learned counsel for Revenue has been unable to point out to Court any view contrary to one taken by Bombay High Court. ITA No. 737/2017 Page 3 of 4 9. It appears that although no appeal was filed by Revenue against order of Bombay High Court in M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals (supra), Revenue has filed Special Leave Petitions before Supreme Court against subsequent orders passed in 2013. However, no stay has been granted thereof. Consequently, Court declines to frame question on this issue. 10. On fourth issue of deletion of addition in Assessee's book profit computed under Section 115JB of Act, order of High Court dated 12th September 2012 for AY 1996-97 had remanded issue to AO for fresh consideration. It is pointed out that, on remand, AO passed order dated 17th October 2013 accepting plea of Assessee. Consequently, on this issue also, this Court also declines to frame question. 11. appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2017/Rm ITA No. 737/2017 Page 4 of 4 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-07 v. Punjab & Sind Bank