1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI ITA NO. 479 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI-576101. APPELLANTS (BY SRI.JEEVAN.J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, TAX CELL, HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL-576104. RESPONDENT BY SRI.T SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PRAYING TO DECIDE 2 FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 13.06.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.998/BANG/2012 AND ITA NO.955/B/2012 FOR A.Y.2010-11 BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, BANGALORE AS SOUGHT FOR, IN ABOVE CASE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for appellants. Sri. T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for respondent. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by revenue. It was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.06.2015 on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in holding that depreciation on valuation of investment portfolio is allowable by treating investments held by 3 assessee bank as stock-in-trade once RBI Master Circular read with CBDT Circular No.665 came into force? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in accepting assessee s claim that assessee has traded in securities, shown as investments in Balance Sheet and that assessee has incurred loss of Rs.380,74,50,825/- on account of revaluing investments as on 31.03.2010 at cost or market value whichever is less? 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in not considering fact that during year assessee has made profit of Rs.243,36,93,260/- on sale of investments, which is credited to P&L A/c as against loss of Rs.380,74,50,825/- claimed? 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was 4 justified in holding that unclaimed amounts in NOSTRO accounts should not be automatically treated as income of bank arising in course of its business activities when bank has already credited amounts to its P&L account? 5. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in holding that these amounts in question, even by efflux of time cannot be treated as income for obligation on part of bank is not extinguished, whereas amount can be claimed as deduction when claim for customer arises? 6. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that provisions of section 115JB of Act are not applicable to assessee which is banking company in contrary to its own decision in previous years wherein it has directed AO to decide 5 issue afresh on basis of P&L account and Balance Sheet redrawn by assessee in accordance with provisions of Companies Act 1956? 7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that provisions of Section 115 JB of Act are not applicable to assessee which is banking company without taking into consideration provisions of section 115JB r/w Explanation (3) to section 115JB of Act and recorded perverse finding? 2. Learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that substantial questions of law No.1 to 3 are covered by judgment KARNATAKA BANK LTD., VS. ASSISTANT CIT (34 TAXMAN.COM 150 (KAR.)) . Accordingly aforesaid substantial questions of law are answered in terms of aforesaid judgment. 6 3. Learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that substantial questions of law No.4 & 5 are covered by judgment dated 14.12.2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court in ITA No.100014/2014 in favour of assessee. Accordingly, aforesaid substantial questions of law are answered in terms of aforesaid judgment. 4. Learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that substantial questions of law No.6 and 7 are covered by judgment dated 16.01.2020 passed by this Court in ITA No.18/2014. Accordingly, aforesaid substantial questions of law are answered in terms of aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BVK Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Udupi v. Syndicate Bank