CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

316 ITR 391High Court2009#2261 most cited

What is CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. authority for?

Broken period interest paid on the purchase of securities constitutes capital expenditure and is therefore not allowable as a revenue deduction.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Bank of Rajasthan Ltd · 316 ITR 391 · broken period interest deduction · interest on securities purchase · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · disallowance of interest · deductibility of broken period interest · income tax deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 57(i)section 2(d)section 90(3)section 2(26)section 129(1)section 2(17)section 43dsection 36(2)(v)section 5(c)section 41(4)section 36(1)(viia)section 46

Judgments citing CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…rused the material on record. This issue is no longer res integra as the jurisdictional High Court in the ITA 147/08 dated 12/9/2012 in the assessee’s own case, following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (326 ITR 526)(Bom) held as under: “16. It is declared u/s 5 of the Act that when interest is accrued or deemed to have been accrued, it is liable to tax. The word ‘accrued’ has defined the legal connotation. The interest that becomes due or liable to be payable whether or not it is paid, the interest is accrued or deemed to have been accrued. If the interest…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2010-

ITA 1407/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit – 2(3)(1), M/S Dena Bank, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Accounts Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Dena Bank Building, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 17-B, Mumbai - 400020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aaacd4249D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ananthan (Dr) Assessee By : Smt. Lalitha Rameshwaran( Ar) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2018

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha Rameshwaran( AR)For Respondent: Shri Ananthan (DR)
Section 115JSection 142Section 143

…he Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the broken period interest paid by the assessee is allowable inspite of Hon’ble Supreme court decision in the 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. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that issue No. 1 of the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the assessee’s own case ITA No. 3676/M/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 and issue No. 2 is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Citibank (supra) and the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal r…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 249/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

…roken period interest is allowable as a deduction, in spite of the hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541(SC) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 391? 11.1. The Hon’ble High Court answered the question as under: Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In deciding this issue, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have merely follo…

Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5706/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

…roken period interest is allowable as a deduction, in spite of the hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541(SC) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 391? 11.1. The Hon’ble High Court answered the question as under: Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In deciding this issue, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have merely follo…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/JPR/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…s 154 is illegal and bad in law. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs. 19,78,71,896/- on account of broken period interest paid by the bank by relying on the decision of Rajasthan High court in case of CIT vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 316 ITR 391 dated 24.03. 2008 by incorrectly distinguishing the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. CITI Bank NA in civil Appeal No. 1549/2006 dated 12.08.2008. 10 ITA Nos. 921/JP/2009, 41/JP/2010, 299/JP/2014 & 28/JP/2013. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in making the above di…

M/S S B B J, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 921/JPR/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…s 154 is illegal and bad in law. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in disallowing Rs. 19,78,71,896/- on account of broken period interest paid by the bank by relying on the decision of Rajasthan High court in case of CIT vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 316 ITR 391 dated 24.03. 2008 by incorrectly distinguishing the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. CITI Bank NA in civil Appeal No. 1549/2006 dated 12.08.2008. 10 ITA Nos. 921/JP/2009, 41/JP/2010, 299/JP/2014 & 28/JP/2013. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in making the above di…

Religare Technova Global Solutions Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 245/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Shri RaviFor Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane,DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…. DCIT (2012)138 ITD 443; ACIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts (India) Ltd. (2010) 39 SOT 438 (Chennai (SB); CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goyal (2011) 331 ITR 10 (Del); DCIT vs. TVS Electronics Ltd. (2012) 52 SOT 287 (Chennai); CIT vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 526 (Bom); CIT vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 349 (Bom). The ld. counsel thus submits that the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition of unearned income is contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3.4 The case was fixed for clarification on 27.10.2016. We brought to the notice of the ld. counsel of the assessee the decision i…

Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 820/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 820/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 Dcb Bank Ltd., The Acit-Circle 2(3), बनाम/ Formerly Development Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Credit Bank Ltd., 6Th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Peninsulla Business Park, Tower A, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA No. 820/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 DCB Bank Ltd., The ACIT-Circle 2(3), बनाम/ Formerly Development Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Credit Bank Ltd., 6th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Peninsulla Business Park, Tower A, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA No. 615/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 The ACIT-Circle 2(3), DCB Bank Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Formerly Dev…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 615/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 820/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 Dcb Bank Ltd., The Acit-Circle 2(3), बनाम/ Formerly Development Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Credit Bank Ltd., 6Th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Peninsulla Business Park, Tower A, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA No. 820/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 DCB Bank Ltd., The ACIT-Circle 2(3), बनाम/ Formerly Development Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Credit Bank Ltd., 6th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Peninsulla Business Park, Tower A, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA No. 615/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 The ACIT-Circle 2(3), DCB Bank Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Formerly Dev…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi

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

ITA 1961/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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 answered this question 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…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1937/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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 answered this question 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…