How many judgments cite CIT v. Bank of India?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bank of India (218 ITR 371), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bank of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 244A, Section 36(1)(viia), Section 36(1)(viii), Section 40(a)(ia).

CIT v. Bank of India

218 ITR 371High Court2015#4578 most cited

What is CIT v. Bank of India authority for?

Expenses arising from foreign exchange fluctuations on revenue expenditure and foreign currency loans for day-to-day business operations are notional or anticipated losses and are allowable.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bank of India · 218 ITR 371 · foreign exchange fluctuation · revenue expenditure · foreign currency loan · notional loss · allowable deduction · Section 41 · Section 36

Also reported as

64 Taxmann.com 215

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 36(1)(vii)Section 244A Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assets section 43d section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 36(2)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(iv)right to receive section 41 section 36(1)(vii)icds mercantile system of accounting

Judgments citing CIT v. Bank of India

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…urred for various type of revenue expenditure as well as for loan in foreign currency taken for day to day functioning of business. The AO wrongly treated as notional or anticipated loss. However, the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of CIT vs. Bank of India 218 ITR 371 and CIT vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. deleted the disallowance. Ld. AR for assessee further argued that this issue (ground) is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of CIT vs. Woodward Governor (I). Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 254, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. CIT 322 ITR 18 (SC) and DCIT vs. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait (2010) 41 SOT 290 (Mum)…

DCIT Cir 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3173/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle 3(1)(1) M/S. Ald Automotive P. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafca0924K

Section 2(3)Section 32

…s. Woodward Governor India Ltd. (2010) 195 Taxman 328 (Del), D.E. Sasoon and Company Ltd. vs CIT, 261 ITR 27 (SC), Calcutta Company Ltd. vs CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC), Bharat Earth Moviers Ltd. vs CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC), CIT vs BHEL, 239 ITR 756, CIT vs Bank of India, 218 ITR 371 and CIT vs IBM, 161 ITR 673 (Bom).” 2.2 We find that, as observed by the learned CIT(A), that the issue is covered by the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 wherein it has been held that section 2(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act is a deeming provision that creates a legal fiction of ownership in favour of lessee…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 1999-2000 Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, Dcit Range 3(1), 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacg0569P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Dcit Range 3(1), Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacg0569P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar

Section 115JSection 145ASection 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, DCIT Range 3(1), 122, Maker Chambers, III, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACG0569P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1999-2000 DCIT Range 3(1), Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 122, Maker Chambers, III, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACG0569P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Soumen Adak…

Inventurus Knowledge Services P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed

ITA 5922/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2009-10 Inventurus Knowledge Services V. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 5(2)(1), C/O. Seren Properties Pvt. Ltd. 525, Aaykar Bhavan, (Sez), Unit No. 204, Build No. 5, M.K. Road, Mindspace Airoli Camp, Plot No. Mumbai - 400 020. 3, Gat No. 95, Kalwa Trans, Thane Creek, Midc Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan/Gir No. Aabck4601P

…ed the same. Ld CIT D.R. submitted that the reference to the Special Bench has been made because the decision of ITAT in the case of Deutsche bank A.G., 86 ITD 431 (supra) and that of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of bank of India, 218 ITR 371 relied upon by the assessee proceeded on the footing that the securities were stock-in-trade but as far as the forward contract is concerned, the same is not stock-in-trade and, therefore, those decisions are not applicable. He pointed out that there is no material to prove that forward contract to buy or sell foreign currency itself constitutes…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007

…ngent nor notional. Reliance is placed on decisions in E.D.Sasoon & Company Ltd. -vs- CIT, 26 ITR 27 (SC), Calcutta Company Ltd. -vs- CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC), Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. – vs- CIT, 245 ITR 428(SC), CIT -vs- BHEL, 239 ITR 756, CIT -vs- Bank of India, 218 ITR 371 and CIT -vs- IBM, 161 ITR 673 (Bombay). (f) As far as the capital account cases are concerned, the Statement of Object and Reasons appended to the Bill preceding the introduction of Section 43-A with effect from 1-4-1967 acknowledged the need to revise the actual cost of an asset consequent to the fluctuation in foreign currency rates. Th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007