ANZ Grindlays Bank v. DCIT

88 ITD 53Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#14477 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(i)preliminary expensessection 46explanation to section 37section 35dsection 36(1)(viia)full and true disclosureprohibited by lawdomestic companysection 36(1)(vii)mere change of opinionsection 35

Judgments citing ANZ Grindlays Bank v. DCIT

The United Western Bank Ltd. (Through Successors Idbi Bank Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 289/PUN/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…sessee bank under the banking regulation Act for which penalty is levied and therefore same is covered by explanation to 37(1) of the Act. Coordinate bench in ANZ ITA Nos. 1738/PN/2005, 289/PN/2010 & 1339/PN/2007 IDBI Bank Ltd.; AY 02-03 Grindlays Bank (2004) 88 ITD 53 (Delhi) has held that the - RBI directions/guidelines are statutory and violation of the same are akin to violation of statutory provisions. The Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian [1997] 10 SCC 488, has also held that the directions of the RBI are binding on the banks; such violations are punishable under the provi…

The United Western Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1339/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…sessee bank under the banking regulation Act for which penalty is levied and therefore same is covered by explanation to 37(1) of the Act. Coordinate bench in ANZ ITA Nos. 1738/PN/2005, 289/PN/2010 & 1339/PN/2007 IDBI Bank Ltd.; AY 02-03 Grindlays Bank (2004) 88 ITD 53 (Delhi) has held that the - RBI directions/guidelines are statutory and violation of the same are akin to violation of statutory provisions. The Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian [1997] 10 SCC 488, has also held that the directions of the RBI are binding on the banks; such violations are punishable under the provi…

The United Western Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1738/PUN/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…sessee bank under the banking regulation Act for which penalty is levied and therefore same is covered by explanation to 37(1) of the Act. Coordinate bench in ANZ ITA Nos. 1738/PN/2005, 289/PN/2010 & 1339/PN/2007 IDBI Bank Ltd.; AY 02-03 Grindlays Bank (2004) 88 ITD 53 (Delhi) has held that the - RBI directions/guidelines are statutory and violation of the same are akin to violation of statutory provisions. The Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian [1997] 10 SCC 488, has also held that the directions of the RBI are binding on the banks; such violations are punishable under the provi…

DCIT (Ltu-2), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3849/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Sreekar, DR
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 IDBI Bank Ltd., DCIT – LTU (2), 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Vs. 29th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Complex, Cuffe Parade, Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400 005 PAN No. AABCI 8842 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT – LTU (2), IDBI Bank Ltd., 29th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Vs. 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 005. PAN No. AABCI 8842 G Ap…

Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3394/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Sreekar, DR
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 IDBI Bank Ltd., DCIT – LTU (2), 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Vs. 29th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Complex, Cuffe Parade, Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400 005 PAN No. AABCI 8842 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT – LTU (2), IDBI Bank Ltd., 29th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Vs. 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower, WTC Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 005. PAN No. AABCI 8842 G Ap…

Growmore Research & Assets Mgt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cei Cir 31 Now DCIT CC 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2015[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1990-91 Growmore Research & Dcit Assets Mgt. Ltd., Central Circle 31, बनाम/ 32 Madhuli Dr A.B. Rd 4Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Worli Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacg4936C Appellant By Shri Dharmesh Shahl & Dhaval Shah (Ar) Revenue By Dr. P. Daniel, (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 14/02/2017 28/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-52 (In Short ‘Cit(A)’}, Dated 30.01.2015 Passed Order Against U/S 143(3) R.W. Section 150(1) & 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Assessment Order Dated 30.03.1999 For Assessment Year 1990-91 On The Following Grounds: “1.The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Appreciated That As Per The Decision Of Hon'Ble Special Court Dated 30.04.2010 In Mp No. 41 Of 1999, The Assets Under Consideration & The Consequential

Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 234ASection 234B

…about ‘shares’ only whereas the assessee is seeking to claim the benefit u/s 43(5) of the Act, which talks about ‘shares’ as well as ‘units’. He placed reliance upone judgment of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank v. Dy. CIT (Delhi) 88 ITD 53 wherein it was held that transactions of the purchase and sale of units and the Government Securities by the assessee without actually delivery would fall within the scope of speculative transactions as defined in section 43(5) of the Act. It was submitted that Hon’ble Delhi Bench has delivered its judgments after taking into account the judgment o…

M/S. Orion Travels Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC 31, Mumbai

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

ITA 939/MUM/2009[1991-1992]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 1991-1992

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Manoj Kumar Agarwal () Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S Orion Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Cc-31 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan No. Aaaco1591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel, Standing Counsel

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, Standing Counsel
Section 144Section 43(5)

…ontracts in both index as well as stocks can be bought and sold through the trading members of a recognized stock exchange”. He also relied on the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal Delhi ‘A’ bench in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Vs. DCIT (2004) 88 ITD 53 (Del) wherein the Tribunal has decided that transaction of purchase and sales of units and Government security by assessee through BR without actual delivery would fall within the scope of speculative transaction as define in section 45(3) of the Act. In view of this, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the word ‘commodity’ would inclu…