CIT v. Bank of Baroda

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Investment India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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:

…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…

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Dbs Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…stment. When the Revenue approached the Tribunal against the relief granted by the first appellate authority, the Tribunal allowed assessee’s claim of deduction following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Bank of Baroda (supra), 262 ITR 334 (Bom.) At this stage, we consider it appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Tribunal in ITA no.1787/Mum./2004, etc., dated 20th April 2011. “5.2 We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding allowability of loss arising on account of diminution in the value of investment. We find th…

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…mon issue urged in both the appeals relates to disallowance of diminution in value of investments. In the earlier years, the Tribunal had allowed this claim by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334). We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has followed the above said binding decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as the orders passed by the ITAT. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by him on this issue. 7. The next issue relates to the disallowance of depreciation claimed on leased assets. We notice that the identica…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3357/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Yes Bank Limited, बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.614, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, 400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3388/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank Limited, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…n ITA No.5833/Mum/2012 and we notice that the Tribunal has followed the following decisions and held that loss on arising on re-valuation of securities is required to be allowed : a) United Commercial Bank V/s CIT (240 ITR 355)(SC); b) CIT V/s Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334)(Bom); and c) CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd IT A No.330 of 2012 (Bom). In view of the above decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases referred above, we uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) on this issue. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced accordi…

Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3357/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Yes Bank Limited, बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.614, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, 400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3388/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank Limited, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…n ITA No.5833/Mum/2012 and we notice that the Tribunal has followed the following decisions and held that loss on arising on re-valuation of securities is required to be allowed : a) United Commercial Bank V/s CIT (240 ITR 355)(SC); b) CIT V/s Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334)(Bom); and c) CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd IT A No.330 of 2012 (Bom). In view of the above decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases referred above, we uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) on this issue. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced accordi…

ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4678/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Central Accounts Department, Vs. World Trade Center, 6Th Floor, Cuff Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…and it has been decided in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (240 ITR 355) and also the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of Ld CIT(A) on this issue, since he has also followed the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of UCO Bank (supra) in deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. 10 4 6 7 8 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 8 4 2 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 3 19. The next issue relates to the…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4678/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Central Accounts Department, Vs. World Trade Center, 6Th Floor, Cuff Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…and it has been decided in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (240 ITR 355) and also the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of Ld CIT(A) on this issue, since he has also followed the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of UCO Bank (supra) in deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. 10 4 6 7 8 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 3 a n d 4 8 4 2 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 3 19. The next issue relates to the…