CIT v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

265 ITR 177High Court2004#5350 most cited

What is CIT v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. authority for?

A levy is penal in nature if criminal liability or prosecution is provided. Otherwise, the key test is whether the penalty for non-compliance entails compensatory or penal consequences.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v Catholic Syrian Bank · penalty · compensatory vs penal consequences · criminal liability · Banking Regulation Act · section 46 · section 47A · revenue expenditure

Also reported as

130 Taxmann 447

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37Section 135Section 135 of the Companies Act

Issues it is cited on

section 226section 46explanation to section 37section 4asection 211section 14a(1)prohibited by lawsection 135section 36(1)(viii)section 115jasection 244section 244a

Judgments citing CIT v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3394/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Sreekar, DR
Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…250 FDRs (supra) already dealt in Revenue’s appeal. The question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the word ‘penalty’ results in a blanket disallowance or facts involved therein still need to be examined. The hon’ble Kerala high court (2004) 265 ITR 177 CIT v/s. Catholic Syrian Bank holds that an important test in such a case is as to whether the penalty for non compliance entails compensatory or penal consequences. And also that if any criminal liability or prosecution is provided, a levy is penal in nature. Section 46 r.w.s. 47A(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation law does not stipulate any such c…

Bfil Finance Ltd ( Formerly Itc Bhadrachalam Finance & Investments Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2648/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh Irani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, D.R
Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. BFIL Finance Ltd., The Income Tax Officer (formerly ITC 1(1)-1, Bhadrachalam Finance & Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Eucharistic Congress Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Bldg. No.1, 4th Floor, 5, Convent Street, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 039 PAN: AAACI 3193H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Farrokh Irani, A.R. Shri Ninad Patade, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.06.2019 D…