CIT v. Bank of Baroda

262 ITR 334High Court2003#2239 most cited

What is CIT v. Bank of Baroda authority for?

An assessee is entitled to claim a deduction for the depreciation in the value of investments, such as shares and securities, if these investments are valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower, consistent with the real income principle.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bank of Baroda · 262 ITR 334 · deduction for depreciation in investment value · valuation of shares and securities · cost or market value whichever is lower · real income principle · loss on investment valuation · UCO Bank Supreme Court

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 154Section 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetssection 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 43dapproved gratuity fundsection 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(viii)actual payment basissection 80hstrategic investmentsection 36(1)(vii)section 36(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Bank of Baroda

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

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

ITA 2954/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)

…t or market price whichever is lower. The loss arising on account of such valuation is allowable as legitimate deduction based on various judicial decisions including that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (240 ITR 355), CIT vs. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334 Bom.), CIT vs. Lakshmi Vitas Bank Ltd. (264 ITR 662 Mad.) Moreover, the SPL filed by the Department has also been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. (313 ITR 26 Stat). 1.5 It is further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer having concluded that the securities held under HTM category constitute its stoc…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…e Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 price in respect of securities. Accordingly, the method of valuation followed by the assessee is required to be accepted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bombay)  CIT vs. Corpn. Bank Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 616 (Karnataka) Further, the issue was not disputed upto financial year 2003-04 and hence, the AO is not justified in taking a different view. 68. The assessee also relied on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 1977 of 2013. The asses…

Asst CIT 1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Investments & Loans (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 7089/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rehman

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna with MsFor Respondent: Shri Simi Samant (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 254(1)

…ction while computing income under the head “Profit & Gains of Business or Profession”. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  DDIT vs. Chohung Bank [126 ITD 448 (Mumbai Trib.)]  CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [262 ITR 334 (Bombay HC)]  Yes Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [46 ITR (T) 121 (Mumbai Trib.)]  JCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Limited (ITA No.3169/M/2011) 12. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 13. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment…

Standard Chartered Investments & Loans (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 7070/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rehman

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna with MsFor Respondent: Shri Simi Samant (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 254(1)

…ction while computing income under the head “Profit & Gains of Business or Profession”. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  DDIT vs. Chohung Bank [126 ITD 448 (Mumbai Trib.)]  CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [262 ITR 334 (Bombay HC)]  Yes Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [46 ITR (T) 121 (Mumbai Trib.)]  JCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Limited (ITA No.3169/M/2011) 12. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 13. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5845/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…m category of “available for sale” to “held to maturity”. This issue now no longer survives in view of two decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “9. In the present case, we find that t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5846/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…m category of “available for sale” to “held to maturity”. This issue now no longer survives in view of two decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “9. In the present case, we find that t…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat vs. The the Surat Peoples Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2573/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 Assistant Vs The Surat Peoples Co-Operative Commissioner Of . Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Circle- Vashudhara Bhavan, Timaliyawad, 5, Surat. Nanpura, Surat – 395001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1726/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Deputy Vs The Surat Peoples Co-Operative . Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Circle- Vashudhara Bhavan, Timaliyawad, 2(2), Surat. Nanpura, Surat – 395001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Mayank Pandey – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.10.2019

Section 36(1)(vii)

…any such claims," In such circumstances, where the same method of accounting is followed and allowed from year to year, such claim has been held to be allowable by the different courts. The Hon'ble Mumbai High court in the ease of CIT v. Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 has held that "Depreciation in value of investment held by bank was allowable as deduction, more so when the loss was debited to P&L A/c which was reflected as provision for liability in the balance sheet and the share and securities were valued at cost on the asset side. Same proposition has been upheld by Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. Ned…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Surat vs. The Surat Peoples Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2573/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2573/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 Assistant Vs The Surat Peoples Co-Operative Commissioner Of . Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Circle- Vashudhara Bhavan, Timaliyawad, 5, Surat. Nanpura, Surat – 395001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1726/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Deputy Vs The Surat Peoples Co-Operative . Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Circle- Vashudhara Bhavan, Timaliyawad, 2(2), Surat. Nanpura, Surat – 395001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Mayank Pandey – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.10.2019

Section 36(1)(vii)

…any such claims," In such circumstances, where the same method of accounting is followed and allowed from year to year, such claim has been held to be allowable by the different courts. The Hon'ble Mumbai High court in the ease of CIT v. Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 has held that "Depreciation in value of investment held by bank was allowable as deduction, more so when the loss was debited to P&L A/c which was reflected as provision for liability in the balance sheet and the share and securities were valued at cost on the asset side. Same proposition has been upheld by Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. Ned…

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

In the result this ground of appeal is

ITA 3423/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…ground of appeal is IDBI Bank Ltd (AY’s 2008-09, 2011-12 to 2013-14) covered in favour of assessee by various decision of superior courts including the decision of Supreme Court in case of UCO Bank (240 ITR 355), Bombay High Court in case of Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334 Bom), HDFC Bank (366 ITR 505 Bom) and also by the decision of tribunal in Bank of India Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1013/Mum/2013 dated 27.08.2018. The learned AR further submits that the learned CIT(A) should have deleted the disallowance instead of directing assessing officer to verify and allow. 25. On the other hand the learned AR for the revenue sub…

Integral Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1075/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (ACIT)
Section 145Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

…09/JP/2015 & 1075/JP/2018 9 Integral Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ACIT/ITO order dated 27.4.2011. The CIT(A) has decided the issue in para 10 as under: “10. Respectfully following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334) wherein the Hon'ble Court held that loss debited to Profit & Loss account due to decrease in value of securities is allowable as deduction and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs VIT 240 ITR 355 where the Hon'ble Court reversing the decision of the High Court held that Nationalised bank governed by Banking Regulati…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 1013/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhbank Of India A C I T - 2(1) C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Vs. M.K Road Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent D C I T - 2(1) Bank Of India Room No. 561, 5Th Floor C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Vs. 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Mumbai 400020 Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2018 O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, Am These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Mumbai Dated 27.11.2012 For A.Y. 2005-06 In The Matter Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ubmissions of the assessee. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank 240 ITR 355 and by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 (Bom) and by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 97-98 ITA No.l680/M/2001 where Hon'ble ITAT has held as below: 'With regard to the first ground after hearing rival contentions we find that the first appellate authority has dealt with the issue at para 3 on page 2 of his order. The first appellate authority observed that t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sharad Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Solapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1240/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 145Section 260ASection 43D

…rities were stock in trade and so depreciation would amount to loss and not income. The authorities below held that this aspect is well settled through the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bank of Baroda, reported in (2003) 262 ITR 334 (Bombay) as well as in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC)). The Supreme Court in the said judgment held that merely because the securities are kept under the head by the bank till the maturity, the said security 9 Sharad Nagari Sah. Bank Ltd., cannot be trea…

A.C.I.T.2(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1891/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyariFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)

…f expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. However, deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards dimimution in value of investment by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Baroda [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bom). Aggrieved by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s order, the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 5. The first issue that came up for consideration in the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2004-05 is disallowance of bad debt written off in respect of non rural branches u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act,…

Kokan Mercantile Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2729/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kokan Mercantile Coop. Dy. Cit-Range-20(2) Bank Ltd. Harbour Crest, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mazagaon T.T. Mumbai- Lalbaug, Mumbai- 400010. 400012. Pan No. Aaaak2527P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the investment depreciation reserves. Be that as it may, we find that the assessee had submitted before us that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 (Bom), wherein as averred by the Ld. A.R. the Hon’ble High Court by upholding the order of the Tribunal had concluded that the assessee was entitled to deduction on account of depreciation in the value of the investments. We are of the considered view that as the assessee had not raised this claim before the lower authorities, nor the facts perta…

Kokan Mercantile Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 17(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 979/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm A.C.I.T -17(1) Kokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 1St Floor. R. No. 113 बिधम/ Harbour Crest, Piramal Chambers Mazgaon, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 010 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaak2527P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Kokan Mercantile Co-Operativebank Ltd. Jt.C.I.T. 17(1) I.T. Harbour Crest, Offices, Piramal बिधम/ Mazgaon, Chambers (1St Floor) Vs. Mumbai 400 010 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaak2527P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.Subramanian A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…assessee before him in respect of its claim of investment depreciation reserve of Rs. 50,00,000/-, submitted that the issue involved therein was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 (Bom). The Ld. A.R. placed on record the copy of the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court passed in the case of Bank of Baroda (supra) and submitted that the Hon‟ble High Court in the said case after deliberating on the issue under consideration had upheld the order of the Tribunal and concluded that the assessee was entitled to deduction on accoun…

Baitarani Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 318/CTK/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ities. Our view is supported by decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., passed in ITA N0.330 of 2012; United Commercial Bank Vs. CIT, 240 ITR 355(SC); Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, 77 ITR 533 (SC); and CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda, 262 ITR 334 (Bom). Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Asse ssment Years : 2 008 -09 & 20 09- 201 0 Hon'ble Bombay High Court and considering the classification of security so made and the loss arose on account of revaluation of securities are required to be allowed. Ld D.R. has not controverted the submission of the assessee…

Classic Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1617/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…rofit on shares invocated by financial institution and accordingly claimed net loss of ` 12,27,248/-. He further submitted that the claim of the assessee is supported by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334) and by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uco Bank (240 ITR 355) (SC). Accordingly he submitted that the impugned loss has been claimed by the assessee in accordance with the method of accounting/method of valuation regularly followed by the assessee. The Learned AR also submitted that the loss of ` 36,65 lakhs claimed by the assessee in A.Y.…

ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan vs. Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Bhiwandi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7224/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, M/S Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ward-1(3), Ltd. बनाम/ 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, H. No.27, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Opp. Bank Of India, Kalyan Bhiwani, Maharashtra-421302 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaan0638A

…wever, the Ld. Assessing Officer held that the impugned amount is a capital expenditure. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix along with various case laws like Uco Bank vs CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC), CIT vs Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 (Bom.), CIT vs City Union Bank Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 144 (Mad.) and CIT vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. 273 ITR 510 (Mad.), etc. were considered and following the decision in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 held that the amount written off by the assessee as ‘amortization of premium on government securities’ in ‘HTM’ category was an a…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of

ITA 6795/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR
Section 14A

…m category of “available for sale” to “held to maturity”. This issue now no longer survives in view of two decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “9. In the present case, we find that…

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)

…is entitled to. This view of ours is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (1999) 241 ITR 355 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under:- “We do not find any merit in this argument. In the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC), the assessee-bank had submitted a return for the assessment year 1982-83 contending that there was a notional loss of Rs. 7.45 crores on account of closing stock of securities valued at mar…