Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian

10 SCC 488Reported decision1997#10063 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 8D

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(i)section 46preliminary expensessection 36(1)(viia)explanation to section 37prohibited by lawsection 35dsection 36(1)(vii)full and true disclosuredomestic companymercantile system of accountingmere change of opinion

Judgments citing Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 716/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

…ections issued periodically. Any contravention of its provisions/directive is made punishable under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian (1997) 10 SCC 488 in which it has been held that directions of RBI are binding on the branch; such violations are punishable under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, hence, any payment in violation of the RBI directions is not allowable as deduction u/s. 37(1) read with Explanation. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case o…

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

…ections issued periodically. Any contravention of its provisions/directive is made punishable under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian (1997) 10 SCC 488 in which it has been held that directions of RBI are binding on the branch; such violations are punishable under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, hence, any payment in violation of the RBI directions is not allowable as deduction u/s. 37(1) read with Explanation. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case o…

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

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

ITA 884/MUM/2003[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 1993-94
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 37(2)Section 46Section 58B

…lars of the RBI and were opposed to public policy. We agree with the observations of the Special Court which had been referred to herein above in connection with this connection and furthermore, as held by this Court in B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. Custodian [1997] 10 SCC 488. The instructions which were issued by the RBI were meant to be complied with only by the Banking Companies and could not be regarded as binding on the other parties. There was no evidence raised or sought to be raised in the present case which could possibly have led the Court to the conclusion that the transaction was opposed to public policy. 9…

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ections issued periodically. Any contravention of its provisions/directive is made punishable under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian (1997) 10 SCC 488 in which it has been held that directions of RBI are binding on the branch; such violations are punishable under the M/s. Bank of Baroda provisions of Banking Regulation Act, hence, any payment in violation of the RBI directions is not allowable as deduction u/s. 37(1) read with Explanation. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka Hig…

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ections issued periodically. Any contravention of its provisions/directive is made punishable under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian (1997) 10 SCC 488 in which it has been held that directions of RBI are binding on the branch; such violations are punishable under the M/s. Bank of Baroda provisions of Banking Regulation Act, hence, any payment in violation of the RBI directions is not allowable as deduction u/s. 37(1) read with Explanation. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka Hig…

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

…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 provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. Hence, any payment in violation of the RBI directions is not allowable as deduction under section 37. Explanation to section 37(1) makes it clear beyond doubt that any expenditure prohibited by…

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

…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 provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. Hence, any payment in violation of the RBI directions is not allowable as deduction under section 37. Explanation to section 37(1) makes it clear beyond doubt that any expenditure prohibited by…

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

…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 provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. Hence, any payment in violation of the RBI directions is not allowable as deduction under section 37. Explanation to section 37(1) makes it clear beyond doubt that any expenditure prohibited by…

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

…ision in ANZ Grindlays Bank (supra) wherein it is 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 provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. Hence, any payment in violation of the RBI directions is not allowable as deduction under section 37. Explanation to section 37(1) makes it clear beyond doubt that any expenditure prohibited by…

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

…ision in ANZ Grindlays Bank (supra) wherein it is 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 provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. Hence, any payment in violation of the RBI directions is not allowable as deduction under section 37. Explanation to section 37(1) makes it clear beyond doubt that any expenditure prohibited by…

Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. Custodian (10 SCC 488) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax