American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…income and vice versa which is a regular market practice. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 case of American Express International Banking Corporation reported in 258 ITR 601, wherein it has been held that Broken Period Interest is deductible in computing business income, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank vs. ACIT reported in (1991) 187 ITR 5541. 29.5. The also submitted that the issue regarding allowability of Broken Period Interest was considered in great detail by Hon'bl…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…income and vice versa which is a regular market practice. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 case of American Express International Banking Corporation reported in 258 ITR 601, wherein it has been held that Broken Period Interest is deductible in computing business income, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank vs. ACIT reported in (1991) 187 ITR 5541. 29.5. The also submitted that the issue regarding allowability of Broken Period Interest was considered in great detail by Hon'bl…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(4),MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. IDBI BANK LTD, PARTH PLAZAMORBI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…its own decision in the case of Vijaya Bank(supra) clearly held that this interest paid by banks is allowable as deduction in computing the total income. He has also relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of American Express Bank 258 ITR 601 which also distinguished the decision of Vijaya Bank.The ld.AR has also drawn attention to the consistent view taken by the jurisdiction ITAT, Mumbai bench in assessee’s own case allowing the claim as revenue expenditure. He has referred to the last decision in its appeal for AY 2020-21 in the co- ordinate Bench in its decision in ITA 5250/Mum/20…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(4), MUMBAI vs. IDBI BANK LTD, PANCHANANTALA ROAD

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the\nRevenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

…own decision in the case of\nVijaya Bank(supra) clearly held that this interest paid by banks\nis allowable as deduction in computing the total income. He\nhas also relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court\nin the case of American Express Bank 258 ITR 601 which\nalso distinguished the decision of Vijaya Bank.The ld.AR has\nalso drawn attention to the consistent view taken by the\njurisdiction ITAT, Mumbai bench in assessee's own case\nallowing the claim as revenue expenditure. He has referred to\nthe last decision in its appeal for AY 2020-21 in the co-\nordinate Bench in its decision in ITA 5250/…

ACIT 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. IDBI BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…its own decision in the case of Vijaya Bank(supra) clearly held that this interest paid by banks is allowable as deduction in computing the total income. He has also relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of American Express Bank 258 ITR 601 which also distinguished the decision of Vijaya Bank.The ld.AR has also drawn attention to the consistent view taken by the jurisdiction ITAT, Mumbai bench in assessee’s own case allowing the claim as revenue expenditure. He has referred to the last decision in its appeal for AY 2020-21 in the co- ordinate Bench in its decision in ITA 5250/Mum/20…

ACIT CIR 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaacb 1534 F V/S Acit, 2(1)(1), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1), Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400020. V/S Bank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra ……………. Respondent Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacb 1534 F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bank of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ……………. Appellant PAN: AAACB 1534 F v/s ACIT, 2(1)(1), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Room No. 561, 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400020. v/s Bank of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra ……………. Respondent Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN: AAACB 1534 F Assessee by : Mr. C. Nar…

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 2 (1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…490,33,93,825/- made by the Appellant to PEL was not in the nature of interest income was could not be accepted. The CIT(A) observed that Hon’ble Bombay High Court had, in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. Vs. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 (Bom.), held that broken period interest should be treated as revenue expenditure. Therefore, amount paid by the Appellant towards accrued interest to PEL was ITA No. 2351/MUM/2024, ITA No.2348/Mum/2024, ITA No.2347/Mum/2024 and ITA No.2345/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 in the nature of income liable to…

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 2 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…490,33,93,825/- made by the Appellant to PEL was not in the nature of interest income was could not be accepted. The CIT(A) observed that Hon’ble Bombay High Court had, in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. Vs. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 (Bom.), held that broken period interest should be treated as revenue expenditure. Therefore, amount paid by the Appellant towards accrued interest to PEL was ITA No. 2351/MUM/2024, ITA No.2348/Mum/2024, ITA No.2347/Mum/2024 and ITA No.2345/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 in the nature of income liable to…

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 2 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…490,33,93,825/- made by the Appellant to PEL was not in the nature of interest income was could not be accepted. The CIT(A) observed that Hon’ble Bombay High Court had, in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. Vs. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 (Bom.), held that broken period interest should be treated as revenue expenditure. Therefore, amount paid by the Appellant towards accrued interest to PEL was ITA No. 2351/MUM/2024, ITA No.2348/Mum/2024, ITA No.2347/Mum/2024 and ITA No.2345/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 in the nature of income liable to…

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS - 2 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of paragraph 13 & 17 above, all the four appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…490,33,93,825/- made by the Appellant to PEL was not in the nature of interest income was could not be accepted. The CIT(A) observed that Hon’ble Bombay High Court had, in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. Vs. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 (Bom.), held that broken period interest should be treated as revenue expenditure. Therefore, amount paid by the Appellant towards accrued interest to PEL was ITA No. 2351/MUM/2024, ITA No.2348/Mum/2024, ITA No.2347/Mum/2024 and ITA No.2345/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 in the nature of income liable to…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

…nsel for the respondent submits that decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable in the facts of the present case. He submits that Bombay High Court in American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 has distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra) and held in the facts of that case that the Income-tax Department ought to have allowed deduction for the broken period interest paid. According to him, after the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in CIT v. Citibank NA [Civil…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…for the respondent submits that decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable in the facts of the present case. He submits that Bombay High Court in American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 125 Taxman 488/258 ITR 601 has distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra) and held in the facts of that case that the Income-tax Department ought to have allowed deduction for the broken period interest paid. According to him, after the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in CIT v. Citibank NA […

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

…avour of the Bank and hence outside the purview of section 263. 6.3 The learned PCIT has erred in not following the Supreme Court judgment in Citibank's case. (Civil appeal no. 1549 of 2006) and the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of American Express (258 ITR 601) by stating that the same is contrary to the facts of the case. 7. Disallowance under section 14A 7.1 The learned PCIT erred in setting aside the said matter to the AO for examination without appreciating that the said issue is outside the purview of section 263 in light of the facts and legal submissions made by the Bank. 7.2 The learned PCIT…

DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 11 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

…IT(A) allowed deduction for broken period interest of INR 5,17,32,848/- as revenue expenditure by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax : [2002] 258 ITR 601 (Bombay) holding as under: “8.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the detailed arguments of the Counsel. The very same issue was subject matter of dispute in appellant's own case in the AY 1991-92 & 1992/93. In AY. 1991/92, the CIT(A) after discussing the Vijaya Bank's case and considering various submissions of the appellant…