British Bank of Middle East v. CIT

233 ITR 251High Court1998#9559 most cited

What is British Bank of Middle East v. CIT authority for?

The difference between the amount payable on maturity and the discounted value of treasury bills at the time of issue is considered interest on securities.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Also referred to as

British Bank of Middle East v. CIT · 233 ITR 251 · interest on securities · treasury bills · discounted value · maturity value · income tax act

Sections most often in play

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2(28A)Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 80hsection 2(28a)section 133a(2a)section 80hhcinterest on refundsection 80hhsection 115jainterest on securitiessection 35dsection 145asection 194hinterest under section 201(1a)

Judgments citing British Bank of Middle East v. CIT

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

…arned Authorised Representative has also placed reliance on following decisions: Sl. No(s). Decision in the case of... Reported in... 1. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201/122 Тахman 516 (Mad.), 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); ITA. No. 2633/MUM/2024 Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai. 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175/165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 573/MUM/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the amount payable on maturity and the discounted value of the treasury bills at the time of issue was treated as interest on securities. The AO has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT [233 ITR 251]. 8. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT (233 ITR 251) held that the difference Between the amount payable on maturity and d…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3055/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the amount payable on maturity and the discounted value of the treasury bills at the time of issue was treated as interest on securities. The AO has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT [233 ITR 251]. 8. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT (233 ITR 251) held that the difference Between the amount payable on maturity and d…

The DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2655/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the amount payable on maturity and the discounted value of the treasury bills at the time of issue was treated as interest on securities. The AO has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT [233 ITR 251]. 8. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT (233 ITR 251) held that the difference Between the amount payable on maturity and d…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the amount payable on maturity and the discounted value of the treasury bills at the time of issue was treated as interest on securities. The AO has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT [233 ITR 251]. 8. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT (233 ITR 251) held that the difference Between the amount payable on maturity and d…

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1933/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the amount payable on maturity and the discounted value of the treasury bills at the time of issue was treated as interest on securities. The AO has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT [233 ITR 251]. 8. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of British Bank of Middle East v/s CIT (233 ITR 251) held that the difference Between the amount payable on maturity and d…

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wockhardt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2131/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Pranay Gandhi, AR
Section 194H

…. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 1. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 1. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201/122 Taxman 516 (Mad.); 201/122 Taxman 516 (Mad.); 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 3. CIT v. Jackson Enginee 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); rs Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2314/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…ed Authorised Representative has also placed reliance on following decisions: Sl. No(s). Decision in the case of... Reported in... 1. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201/122 Taxman 516 (Mad.); 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 894/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…arned Authorised Representative has also placed reliance on following decisions: Sl. No(s). Decision in the case of... Reported in... 1. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201/122 Taxman 516 (Mad.); 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of th…

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai. vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 893/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

…arned Authorised Representative has also placed reliance on following decisions: Sl. No(s). Decision in the case of... Reported in... 1. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201/122 Taxman 516 (Mad.); 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.); 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi); 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi); 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.); 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Taxman 191 (Ori.). 6. We have carefully perused the decision of th…

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds (c) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6803/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit (Tds)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd. 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Tower, G Block, Bandra Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacw2472M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 51/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Dcit (Tds)-2(3), 6Th Floor, Wockhardt Smt. K. G. Mittal बिधम/ Tower, G Block, Bandra Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg. Vs. Room No. 718, 7Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anand Mohan, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Kirit Kamdar, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.11.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Anand Mohan, DRFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar, AR
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201(1)

…Authorised Representative has also placed reliance on following decisions :— Sl. No(s). Decision in the case of... Reported in... 1. CIT v. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 201 / 122 Taxman 516 (Mad.) 2. British Bank Middle East v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 251 (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Jackson Engineers Ltd. [2010] 231 CTR 348 (Delhi) 4. CIT v. Advance Detergents Ltd. [2010] 228 CTR 356 (Delhi) 13 I.T.A. No. 6803/Mum/2018 & CO 51/Mum/2020 M/s Wockhardt Ltd. 5. Phatela Cotgin Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 411 / 166 Taxman 9 (Punj. & Har.) 6. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 175 / 165 Ta…