Which sections of the Income Tax Act does American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 193, Section 194A, Section 2(28A), Section 201(1A), Section 40(a)(ia).

American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT (258 ITR 601)

Q: What is American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT authority for?

Interest paid by banks is allowable as a deduction in computing total income. The decision distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijaya Bank regarding the deductibility of such interest.

Q: How many judgments cite American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT?

90 judgments on BharatTax cite American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT (258 ITR 601), spanning 2015 to 2026.

ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 6021/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyariFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

…supra) based on which the Assessments were reopened was already considered and distinguished by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express C.O NOs. 301, 302 & 303/MUM/2017 M/s. Central Bank of India International Banking Corporation v. CIT [258 ITR 601] and held that the broken period interest is deductible as business expenditure. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court affirming the decision of the Appellate Tribunal held as under: “Once the Department sought to assess to tax the interest received by the assessee from the transferees for the broken period under the head “Business”, the Department could…

ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 6020/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyariFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

…supra) based on which the Assessments were reopened was already considered and distinguished by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express C.O NOs. 301, 302 & 303/MUM/2017 M/s. Central Bank of India International Banking Corporation v. CIT [258 ITR 601] and held that the broken period interest is deductible as business expenditure. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court affirming the decision of the Appellate Tribunal held as under: “Once the Department sought to assess to tax the interest received by the assessee from the transferees for the broken period under the head “Business”, the Department could…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4355/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bank Of Baroda Dcit-2(1)(1) Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bank Of Baroda Dcit-2(1)(1) Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road

Section 253Section 254(1)

…d for claim of broken period interest expenses. 5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd 366 ITR 505 (Bom), while relying on the ratio laid down in its earlier decision in American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 601 (Bom), which in turn, had distinguished the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (supra) and the Hon’ble High Court of & 5020/Mum/2015- M/s Bank of Baroda Rajasthan In CIT Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd (supra) and had held that broken period interest is allowable as deduction. Following the same parity of reasoning, we…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5604/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhita No.5604/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2009-10) Dcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Corporate Centre, Bandra Vs. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Revenue By : Shri C. Naresh (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, [For Short The Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 30.06.2016 & 22.11. 2011 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. The Revenue In Both The Appeals Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal; Hence Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Decided By Common Order. For Appreciation Of Fact, We Are Discussing The Fact For Assessment Year 2008-09. Though The Revenue Has Raised Two Ground Of Appeal, However, As Per Our Considered View The Sole Ground Of Appeal Is Whether Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Broken Period Interest Expenditure. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Banking Company. The Assessee Is Carrying Banking Business. The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Was Completed On 30.12.2010 Under Ita No. 5604/Mum/2016- M/S Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri C. Naresh (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…R for the revenue relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank vs. ACIT [187 ITR 541 (SC)]. The ld DR further submits that initially the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. CIT (258 ITR 601) has allowed broken period interest expenses, however, the same has been distinguished by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Bank of Rajasthan (2009) 178 Taxman 304 (Raj). On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld CIT(A) and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 2 ITA No. 5604/Mum/2016- M/s…

The Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 3853/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…e find no infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT reported in [2002] 258 ITR 601. On going through the said judgment, we find that question (B) reproduced above and projected as substantial by Mr. Suresh Kumar is squarely answered by the judgment of this Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. (supra). In view thereof, we do not find that even question (B) gives rise to any substantial question of…

ACIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dcb Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-

ITA 5260/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Acit – 2(3)(1), M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Tower A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Peninsula Business Park, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Senapat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacd1461F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)

Section 143Section 147

…HTM Securities by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Citi Bank in Civil Appeal No. 1549 of 2006 and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom). The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the said findings of the Ld. CIT (A). Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13 3. The revenue has raised the following effective grounds of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A):- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has er…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2010-

ITA 1407/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit – 2(3)(1), M/S Dena Bank, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Accounts Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Dena Bank Building, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 17-B, Mumbai - 400020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aaacd4249D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ananthan (Dr) Assessee By : Smt. Lalitha Rameshwaran( Ar) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2018

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha Rameshwaran( AR)For Respondent: Shri Ananthan (DR)

Section 115JSection 142Section 143

…d issue in favour of the assessee following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Citi Bank in Civil appeal No. 1549 of 2006 and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in American Express Int. Banking Corporation vs. CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom) and decisions of the ITAT, Mumbai. 4. The revenue has challenged the said order by raising the following grounds of appeal:- Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 1. “The order of the CIT (A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in holdin…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 249/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

…d that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in ITA No.820/Mum/2014, dated 4.11.2015 by following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation reported in 258 ITR 601(Bom). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below (ITA No.820/M/2014, para 9.2 to 12) : “9.2. After considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee, the AO was of the opinion that on identical set of facts, the department has not accepted the claim in the case of HDFC Bank , therefore, the same is also not accepted in the case…

Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 5706/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

…d that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in ITA No.820/Mum/2014, dated 4.11.2015 by following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation reported in 258 ITR 601(Bom). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below (ITA No.820/M/2014, para 9.2 to 12) : “9.2. After considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee, the AO was of the opinion that on identical set of facts, the department has not accepted the claim in the case of HDFC Bank , therefore, the same is also not accepted in the case…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…submitted that besides being covered by the decisions in Nestle India Limited:296 ITR 682 (Del.), CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd.: 326 ITR 425 (Del.), Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd v. CIT 195 ITR 682 (Bom);, American Express International Banking Corporation v CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom);, CIT v. Citibank N.A.: 264 ITR 18 (Bom), CIT v. Force Motors Ltd.: ITA No. 5296 of 2010 (Bom), CIT v. Sundharam Industries Ltd 240 ITR 335 (Mad);, Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. v. CIT: 209 ITR 649 (Guj.), CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.: 205 Taxman 59 (Kar), Assam Brook Ltd. v CIT: 267 ITR 121 (Cal), DCIT v. Max India Ltd (2007) 1…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/JPR/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…05-06 dt. 22.05.2017 after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. CITI Bank NA in civil appeal no. 1549 of 2006 dated 12.08.2008 & the decision of Bomaby High court in the case of American Express International Banking cooperation 258 ITR 601 (SLP of the department on this issue was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Union of India S.L.P. No. 6815 of 2004, 268 ITR ( Statue) 216 and CIT Vs. Deutshe Bank A.G: S.L.P. (C.) No. 3710 of 2004, 266 ITR (Statute) 106, held that broken period interest paid is alowbae deduction in computing the total income. Thus, when th eHon…

M/S S B B J, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 921/JPR/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…05-06 dt. 22.05.2017 after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. CITI Bank NA in civil appeal no. 1549 of 2006 dated 12.08.2008 & the decision of Bomaby High court in the case of American Express International Banking cooperation 258 ITR 601 (SLP of the department on this issue was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Union of India S.L.P. No. 6815 of 2004, 268 ITR ( Statue) 216 and CIT Vs. Deutshe Bank A.G: S.L.P. (C.) No. 3710 of 2004, 266 ITR (Statute) 106, held that broken period interest paid is alowbae deduction in computing the total income. Thus, when th eHon…

Bhansali Bright Baras P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3976/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Acit-5(1), Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 150, Madhav Bhavan, Vs. Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcb1544N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Darshak Shah Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 11/01/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…s noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, duly considered the decision in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra) along with the case of American Express International Banking Corporation vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 601, CIT vs M/s Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merge with HDFC Bank Ltd.) order dated 04/07/2014 (ITA No.1079 of 2012). Identically, the Hon’ble High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT (W.P. No.1753 of 2016) order dated 25/02/2016 in para 11 (a) observed as under:- One more aspect which needs to be adverted to and that is a decision would be considered to…

Deutsche Investment India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1276/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Deutsche Investments Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.161/Mum/2014 (In Ita No.3724/Mum/2013- A.Y:2008-09) & M/S. Deutsche Investments Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E .. Cross Objector/Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shri Sivaji Gode, Sr. Dr .. Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar .. Date Of Hearing 07-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 07- 11- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM The Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Deutsche Investments Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Corporate Park, Ganpatrao KadamMarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 PAN: AACCD 1705 E Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.161/Mum/2014 (In ITA No.3724/Mum/2013- A.Y:2008-09) & M/s. Deutsche Investments Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, Piramal Tower, Peninsula A…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Investment India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3724/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Deutsche Investments Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.161/Mum/2014 (In Ita No.3724/Mum/2013- A.Y:2008-09) & M/S. Deutsche Investments Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E .. Cross Objector/Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shri Sivaji Gode, Sr. Dr .. Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar .. Date Of Hearing 07-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 07- 11- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM The Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Deutsche Investments Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Corporate Park, Ganpatrao KadamMarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 PAN: AACCD 1705 E Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.161/Mum/2014 (In ITA No.3724/Mum/2013- A.Y:2008-09) & M/s. Deutsche Investments Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, Piramal Tower, Peninsula A…

Icici Lombard General Insurance Comapny Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, by following the orders of this Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the ground is allowed”

ITA 3712/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh: (A.Y : 2008-09) Dcit-10(1), Vs. M/S. Icici Lombard General Mumbai (Appellant) Insurance Co. Ltd., 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. Pan : Aaaci7904G (Respondent) : (A.Y : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 44

…sion for expenses was 14 M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance ITA Nos. 3698 & 3712/Mum/2013 detailed before CIT(A) and in this regard reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking, 258 ITR 601 (Bom). The learned representative has pointed out that it was clearly brought out that it was being done as per regular method of accounting followed by the assessee and which had been accepted by the Department in the past years also. In this context, the learned representative for the assessee has also referred to the written communication date…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, by following the orders of this Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the ground is allowed”

ITA 3698/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh: (A.Y : 2008-09) Dcit-10(1), Vs. M/S. Icici Lombard General Mumbai (Appellant) Insurance Co. Ltd., 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. Pan : Aaaci7904G (Respondent) : (A.Y : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 44

…sion for expenses was 14 M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance ITA Nos. 3698 & 3712/Mum/2013 detailed before CIT(A) and in this regard reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express International Banking, 258 ITR 601 (Bom). The learned representative has pointed out that it was clearly brought out that it was being done as per regular method of accounting followed by the assessee and which had been accepted by the Department in the past years also. In this context, the learned representative for the assessee has also referred to the written communication date…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

Accordingly appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4774/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…R, the club membership fee paid by the Director has got direct nexus with the advertising business of the assessee and is allowable as business expenditure. In support of his contention, Learned AR has relied on the following case laws: CIT vs. Citi Bank N.A. 264 ITR 18 Willard India Ltd. vs. DCIT 87 TTJ 102 (Del D) 3.3 Considering the fact of the case and case laws as relied upon by the Learned AR, I find that the club membership fee is an allowable. Hence, the disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- is deleted". 6.4 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of my predecessor and on the decisions in the cases of 20 I…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…ements: 77 Nestle India Limited: 296 ITR 682 (Del.)  CIT v. Samtel Color Ltd.: 326 ITR 425 (Del.)  Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd v CIT 195 ITR 682 (Bom);  American Express International Banking Corporation v CIT 258 ITR  601 (Bom); CIT vs Citibank N.A.: 264 ITR 18 (Bom)   CIT vs Force Motors Ltd.: ITA No. 5296 of 2010 (Bom)  CIT v Sundharam Industries Ltd 240 ITR 335 (Mad);  Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT: 209 ITR 649 (Guj.)  CIT vs Infosys Technologies Ltd.: 205 Taxman 59 (Kar) Assam Brook Ltd. vs CIT: 267 ITR 121 (Cal) DCIT v Max India Ltd (2007) 112 TTJ (Asr.) 726  The aforesaid issu…

Ashraj Foods & Beverages P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1505/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Ashraj Foods & Beverages Ito-9(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ Shop No.22, Vs. Galaxy Apartments, B.J. Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050 Pan. No. Aaaca5134E ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue )

Section 115JSection 234B

…s placed upon the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 49 taxman.com 335 (Bom.), CIT vs Reliance utilities and power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and American Express International Banking Corporation vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 601. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Smt. N.V. Nadkarni, defended the addition and the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 3 M/s Ashraj Foods & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts and brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in tea…

American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT

What is American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT

ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

The Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -1, Mumbai

ACIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dcb Bank Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai

Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ACIT, Jaipur vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur

M/S S B B J, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Bhansali Bright Baras P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1), Mumbai

Deutsche Investment India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Investment India Ltd, Mumbai

Icici Lombard General Insurance Comapny Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Ashraj Foods & Beverages P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(1), Mumbai