Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Udupi v. Syndicate Bank
[Citation -2020-LL-0131-101]
| Citation | 2020-LL-0131-101 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Udupi |
| Respondent Name | Syndicate Bank |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 31/01/2020 |
| Assessment Year | 1990-00 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | mercantile system of accounting • interest • non-performing asset |
| Bot Summary: | Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the appellants. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing assessee s claim for reversal of interest of Rs.5,42,12,404/- credited to its income even when the assessee has only reversed the earlier years income by treating the account as Non Performing Asset and such reversal of interest does not fall 3 within the purview of sec.36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act 1961 and that as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India which is binding on the assessee u/s.43D, once the debt becomes NPA, only the interest credited in the current year can be reversed and interest already credited in the previous year cannot be reversed 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in allowing on pre-acquisition of securities treated as capital amounting to Rs.17,63,00,000/- which has not fallen due when the assessee bank is following mercantile system of accounting and as per RBI guidelines from A.Y.1992-93, the banks are required to hold 70 of the securities as permanent assets and shall remain with the bank till the date of maturity 2. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel jointly submitted that the substantial question of law No. is covered by the judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed in ITA No.258/2011. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law are answered in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the second substantial question of law framed by this Court is covered by the judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed in ITA No.433/2006 in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial questions of law are answered. |