CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

…he Tribunal was correct\nin holding that broken period interest is allowable as a deduction insptie of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Vijya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the\nRajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?\n4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was\npaid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest\ncomponent and the same would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure. The\nassessee, however, argued that there was separate interest component payment of whi…

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

…he Tribunal was correct\nin holding that broken period interest is allowable as a deduction insptie of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Vijya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the\nRajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?\n\n4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was\npaid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest\ncomponent and the same would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure. The\nassessee, however, argued that there was separate interest component payment of w…

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…y placing reliance on the\ndecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.\n(2014) 49 taxmann.com 335 (Bom.).\n17. The Id. DR submitted that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nBank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 391 (Raj.) has held a contrary view which has\nbeen followed by the AO while making the disallowance. Accordingly, the ld. DR\nsupported the order of the AO.\n18. The Id. AR on the other hand submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in\nthe case of HDFC Bank (supra) has distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble\nRajasthan High Court and the decis…

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…y placing reliance on the\ndecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.\n(2014) 49 taxmann.com 335 (Bom.).\n17. The Id. DR submitted that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nBank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 391 (Raj.) has held a contrary view which has\nbeen followed by the AO while making the disallowance. Accordingly, the ld. DR\nsupported the order of the AO.\n18. The Id. AR on the other hand submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in\nthe case of HDFC Bank (supra) has distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble\nRajasthan High Court and the decis…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…y placing reliance on the\ndecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.\n(2014) 49 taxmann.com 335 (Bom.).\n17. The Id. DR submitted that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nBank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 391 (Raj.) has held a contrary view which has\nbeen followed by the AO while making the disallowance. Accordingly, the ld. DR\nsupported the order of the AO.\n18. The Id. AR on the other hand submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in\nthe case of HDFC Bank (supra) has distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble\nRajasthan High Court and the decis…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…y placing reliance on the\ndecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.\n(2014) 49 taxmann.com 335 (Bom.).\n17. The Id. DR submitted that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs.\nBank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 391 (Raj.) has held a contrary view which has\nbeen followed by the AO while making the disallowance. Accordingly, the ld. DR\nsupported the order of the AO.\n18. The Id. AR on the other hand submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in\nthe case of HDFC Bank (supra) has distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble\nRajasthan High Court and the decis…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

…tion to show that any reasonable expenditure had been incurred for the purpose of realizing the interest on securities. 12. Mr. Prasad has also placed reliance on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman ` 304/316 ITR 391 wherein the question before the Court was whether taxability of interest on securities subject to transaction price on sale or security continues to be governed by the ratio of the decision in Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra). In that case, Rajasthan High Court applied the decision of the Supreme Court and answered the above question in favour of the Rev…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…w that any reasonable expenditure had been incurred for the purpose of realizing the interest on securities. 12. Mr. Prasad has also placed reliance on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman Page | 54 304/316 ITR 391 wherein the question before the Court was whether taxability of interest on securities subject to transaction price on sale or security continues to be governed by the ratio of the decision in Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra). In that case, Rajasthan High Court applied the decision of the Supreme Court and answered the above question in favour of th…

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S IDBI BANK LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT. (1991) 187 ITR 541 (SC) in which it has been clearly stated that BPI is part of capital outlay for acquisition of securities. Further, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.(2009) 316 ITR 391 (Rajasthan) came to the conclusion that the amount paid by the bank towards BPI on securities purchased by it is not an allowable business deduction but has to be considered as the purchase price paid for acquiring the securities after considering the case of American Express International Banking vs. CIT (258 ITR 601) in detail. In view of the a…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

…in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction in spite of the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?‖ 5.2. The Hon‟ble High Court disposed of the above question by observing as under:- ―4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was paid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest component and the same would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure. The as…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

…in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction in spite of the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?‖ 5.2. The Hon‟ble High Court disposed of the above question by observing as under:- ―4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was paid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest component and the same would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure. The as…

INDUSIND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

…in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction in spite of the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?‖ 5.2. The Hon‟ble High Court disposed of the above question by observing as under:- ―4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was paid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest component and the same would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure. The as…

INDUSIND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

…in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction in spite of the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?‖ 5.2. The Hon‟ble High Court disposed of the above question by observing as under:- ―4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was paid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest component and the same would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure. The as…

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391) ? Honourable High Court held as Under:- “6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 60…

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391) ? Honourable High Court held as Under:- “6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 60…

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391) ? Honourable High Court held as Under:- “6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 60…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391) ? Honourable High Court held as Under:- “6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 60…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391) ? Honourable High Court held as Under:- “6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 60…

DCIT 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

…was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391) ? Honourable High Court held as Under:- “6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 60…