Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

2024 SCC OnLine SC 2877Reported decision2024#5633 most cited

What is Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Banks can claim tax deductions for broken period interest on Held to Maturity (HTM) government securities if classified as stock-in-trade, treating it as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax · broken period interest · Held to Maturity · HTM securities · stock-in-trade · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · Section 14A · Section 37(1) · Section 43D · Section 35D

Also reported as

167 Taxmann.com 430

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 43DSection 35DSection 234ASection 41Section 8D(2)Section 143(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 43dsection 35dsection 41interest on securitiesinterest u/s 234arevenue expendituredisallowance u/s 14asection 43section 37(1)capital expendituresection 37disallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

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

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

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

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1547/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…w by a higher judicial forum, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 57. Ground no. 1 is thus dismissed.” 51. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Rajasthan vs. CIT, reported in (2024) 469 ITR 280 (SC) held that where an assessee bank purchase government security and paid broken period interest since said securities was treated as stock-in-trade, the broken period interest could not be considered as capital asset and would have to be treated as revenue expenditure. 52. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings and respectfully followin…

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1451/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…w by a higher judicial forum, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 57. Ground no. 1 is thus dismissed.” 51. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Rajasthan vs. CIT, reported in (2024) 469 ITR 280 (SC) held that where an assessee bank purchase government security and paid broken period interest since said securities was treated as stock-in-trade, the broken period interest could not be considered as capital asset and would have to be treated as revenue expenditure. 52. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings and respectfully followin…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4829/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 35DSection 37(1)

…of the securities. 33. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case and the legal position emerging from various judicial decisions relating to the issue in hand.In a recent judgment of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2877, dated October 16, 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has allowed banks to claim tax deductions for broken period interest on Held to Maturity (HTM) government securities, provided they are classified as stock-in-trade. The decision clarifies the tax treatment for banks regarding interest paid for the period between the last cou…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4501/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 35DSection 37(1)

…of the securities. 33. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case and the legal position emerging from various judicial decisions relating to the issue in hand.In a recent judgment of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2877, dated October 16, 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has allowed banks to claim tax deductions for broken period interest on Held to Maturity (HTM) government securities, provided they are classified as stock-in-trade. The decision clarifies the tax treatment for banks regarding interest paid for the period between the last cou…

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5346/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…sue in favour of the assessee, followed the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd, in ITA No. 330 of 2012. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 280 (SC), held that Central Bank of India (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17) 23 where assessee-bank purchased government securities and paid broken period interest, since said securities were treated as stock-in-trade, broken period interest could not be considered as capital expenditure and would have to be treated as revenue expenditure, which could be allo…

Jt. CIT (OSD) -2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 3674/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…sue in favour of the assessee, followed the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd, in ITA No. 330 of 2012. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 280 (SC), held that Central Bank of India (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17) 24 where assessee-bank purchased government securities and paid broken period interest, since said securities were treated as stock-in-trade, broken period interest could not be considered as capital expenditure and would have to be treated as revenue expenditure, which could be al…

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1223/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…sue in favour of the assessee, followed the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd, in ITA No. 330 of 2012. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 280 (SC), held that Central Bank of India (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17) 23 where assessee-bank purchased government securities and paid broken period interest, since said securities were treated as stock-in-trade, broken period interest could not be considered as capital expenditure and would have to be treated as revenue expenditure, which could be allo…

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1078/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

…sue in favour of the assessee, followed the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd, in ITA No. 330 of 2012. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 280 (SC), held that Central Bank of India (A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17) 24 where assessee-bank purchased government securities and paid broken period interest, since said securities were treated as stock-in-trade, broken period interest could not be considered as capital expenditure and would have to be treated as revenue expenditure, which could be allo…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotatk Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5110/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

…|आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 4950/MUM/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 4946/MUM/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v/s. Assessment Unit, Income 27 BKC, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACK4409J Appella…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5075/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

…|आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 4950/MUM/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 4946/MUM/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v/s. Assessment Unit, Income 27 BKC, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACK4409J Appella…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 4950/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

…|आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 4950/MUM/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 4946/MUM/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v/s. Assessment Unit, Income 27 BKC, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACK4409J Appella…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Mumbai

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

ITA 4946/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 41

…|आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 4950/MUM/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 4946/MUM/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v/s. Assessment Unit, Income 27 BKC, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACK4409J Appella…

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

ITA 5959/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 and 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. Assistan…

ACIT 3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 5900/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

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)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/MUM/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 and 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. Assistan…

ACIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2777/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…d order. 17. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent as above, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue." 35. We further find that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. CIT, (2024) 469 ITR 280 (SC) held that where assessee bank purchased Government securities and paid broken period of interest, since said securities were treated as stock in trade, the broken period interest could not be considered as capital expenditure and would have to be treated as revenue expenditure. 36. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings and respectful…

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…id order. 17. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent as above, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue." 35. We further find that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. CIT, (2024) 469 ITR 280 (SC) held that where assessee bank purchased Government securities and paid broken period of interest, since said securities were treated as stock in trade, the broken period interest could not be considered as capital expenditure and would have to be treated as revenue expenditure. 36. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings and respectfull…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, **appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar**

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 41(1)

…ecurities. 33. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case and the legal position emerging from various judicial decisions relating to the issue in hand.In a recent judgment of **Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax***,* **2024 SCC OnLine SC 2877***, dated October 16, 2024,* the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has allowed banks to claim tax deductions for broken period interest on Held to Maturity (HTM) government securities, provided they are classified as stock-in-trade. The decision clarifies the tax treatment for banks regarding interest paid for the period between the last…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3754/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Shri Bhargav ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 41(1)

…of the securities. 33. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case and the legal position emerging from various judicial decisions relating to the issue in hand.In a recent judgment of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2877, dated October 16, 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has allowed banks to claim tax deductions for broken period interest on Held to Maturity (HTM) government securities, provided they are classified as stock-in-trade. The decision clarifies the tax treatment for banks regarding interest paid for the period between the last cou…

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2877) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax