STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the expenditure incurred towards a rights issue of shares is generally considered capital in nature and not eligible for deduction under Section 35D. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged that certain expenses related to capital issues might be amortizable.
What were the facts?
The assessee, State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore), incurred expenditure related to issuing rights shares. The assessee claimed a portion of this expenditure as a deduction under Section 35D, while the Assessing Officer disallowed it, classifying it as capital expenditure.
What were the issues?
Whether expenditure incurred in connection with a rights issue of shares is eligible for deduction under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT1,695 citing193 ITR 321 · 1992 · SC
- Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT901 citing245 ITR 428 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- ACCE v. Dunlop India Ltd.58 citing154 ITR 172 · 1985 · SC
- DCIT v. Datacraft India Ltd.45 citing40 SOT 295 · 2010 · ITAT
- State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT39 citing33 SOT 7 · 2009 · ITAT
- Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT37 citing314 ITR 314 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
- 146 Taxmann.com 217 citing146 Taxmann.com 21 · 2023 · HC
- CIT v. NCR Corporation Pvt Ltd.7 citing117 Taxmann.com 252 · 2020 · HC
- CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank5 citing195 Taxmann 57 · 2010 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG&
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Large Tax Payer Unit-Bangalore [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) d
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 35D
- Yashpal Singh Yadav, Noida vs ACIT Circle-2(3)91), JhansiITA 443/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- DCIT-4(1), Indore vs Texmo Pipes and Products Limited, BurhanpurITA 423/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Income Tax Officer Ward 7 1, Pune vs Sarsan Developers, PuneITA 460/PUN/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Road Infrastructure Development Company of… vs ACIT, Circle 6, Jaipur, Central Revenue…ITA 1425/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
- Sanraj Hospitality Private Ltd, Delhi vs ITO Ward 22(3), DelhiITA 7410/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026