CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd.

291 ITR 144High Court2007#3682 most cited

What is CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. authority for?

When investments are made in accordance with the Income Tax Act, and the market price of these investments changes from the value shown in the opening balance at the year-end, depreciation on such investments can be allowed.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd · 291 ITR 144 · depreciation on investments · market value change · opening balance · IT Act requirements · bank securities

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)depreciation on leased assetssection 197a(1a)section 36(1)(v)preliminary expensessection 197asection 36(2)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(viii)section 35dsection 135

Judgments citing CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd.

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

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

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

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…sing officer. He further invited our attention to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Catholic Syrian bank Ltd versus CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270, the decision of the honourable madras High Court in case of CIT versus city Union Bank Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 144 and of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Deputy Commissioner of income tax versus Karnataka bank Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 705. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Punjab and Sindh bank versus ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 103. 119) He fairly invited our attention also to the decision of the coordinate bench in asses…

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

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

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…officer. He further invited our attention to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Catholic Syrian bank Ltd versus CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270, the decision of the honourable madras High Court in case of CIT versus city Union Bank Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 144 and of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Deputy Commissioner of income tax versus Karnataka bank Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 705. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Punjab and Sindh bank versus ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 103 (Delhi). 119) He fairly invited our attention also to the decision of the coordinate…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,,KUMBAKONAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1),, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 672/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 in CIT vs City :-19-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 Union Bank [2007] 291 ITR 144, where the Hon’ble High Court held that when investments are made in accordance with the requirements of the Act, wherein the market price changed from the value shown in the opening balance at the end of the year, then same can be allowed as depreciation. 7.2 The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CI…

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 in CIT vs City :-19-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 Union Bank [2007] 291 ITR 144, where the Hon’ble High Court held that when investments are made in accordance with the requirements of the Act, wherein the market price changed from the value shown in the opening balance at the end of the year, then same can be allowed as depreciation. 7.2 The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CI…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 in CIT vs City :-19-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 Union Bank [2007] 291 ITR 144, where the Hon’ble High Court held that when investments are made in accordance with the requirements of the Act, wherein the market price changed from the value shown in the opening balance at the end of the year, then same can be allowed as depreciation. 7.2 The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CI…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 in CIT vs City :-19-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 Union Bank [2007] 291 ITR 144, where the Hon’ble High Court held that when investments are made in accordance with the requirements of the Act, wherein the market price changed from the value shown in the opening balance at the end of the year, then same can be allowed as depreciation. 7.2 The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CI…

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1121/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 in CIT vs City :-19-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 Union Bank [2007] 291 ITR 144, where the Hon’ble High Court held that when investments are made in accordance with the requirements of the Act, wherein the market price changed from the value shown in the opening balance at the end of the year, then same can be allowed as depreciation. 7.2 The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CI…

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…ely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in appellant’s own case for assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 in CIT vs City :-19-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 Union Bank [2007] 291 ITR 144, where the Hon’ble High Court held that when investments are made in accordance with the requirements of the Act, wherein the market price changed from the value shown in the opening balance at the end of the year, then same can be allowed as depreciation. 7.2 The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CI…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…subject to satisfaction of the requirements contemplated under Section 36(2).” 58. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras);  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC);  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi). 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of a…

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

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…subject to satisfaction of the requirements contemplated under Section 36(2).” 58. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras);  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC);  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi). 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of a…

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

ITA 4951/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

…9 ITR 705 (SC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) and Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. 27 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras), we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts (other than in respect of rural advances). So grounds No.5.1 & 5.2 are decided in favour of the assessee. Ground No.6 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 26. The AO made an addition of Rs.17,40,43…

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

ITA 3685/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

…9 ITR 705 (SC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) and Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. 27 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras), we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts (other than in respect of rural advances). So grounds No.5.1 & 5.2 are decided in favour of the assessee. Ground No.6 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 26. The AO made an addition of Rs.17,40,43…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3779/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)

…subject to satisfaction of the requirements contemplated under Section 36(2).” 58. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras)  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC)  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of adva…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1359/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…tal loss the same was rightly allowed by the learned CIT – A as a normal business loss in view of the factual position stated. He further supported the order of the learned CIT – A relying on the decision of the honourable madras High Court in 273 ITR 510 and 291 ITR 144. He therefore submitted that though learned CIT A has held that there is no capital loss incurred by the assessee but has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 37 (1) of the act or u/s 29 of the income tax act. He submitted that the profit and loss of the banking business is required to be computed after valuing the inventory as is invest…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IFCI, NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2934/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…tal loss the same was rightly allowed by the learned CIT – A as a normal business loss in view of the factual position stated. He further supported the order of the learned CIT – A relying on the decision of the honourable madras High Court in 273 ITR 510 and 291 ITR 144. He therefore submitted that though learned CIT A has held that there is no capital loss incurred by the assessee but has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 37 (1) of the act or u/s 29 of the income tax act. He submitted that the profit and loss of the banking business is required to be computed after valuing the inventory as is invest…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ubject to satisfaction of the requirements contemplated under Section 36(2).” 58. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras)  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC)  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of adv…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1316/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…n stock that stock in trade should be valued at cost or market whichever is less. It is submitted that similar claim was allowed by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case by placing reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case in 291 ITR 144. This issue was also dealt by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank vs. JCIT, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’9.5 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The short issue in this ground of appeal is whether fall in value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed a…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1315/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…n stock that stock in trade should be valued at cost or market whichever is less. It is submitted that similar claim was allowed by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case by placing reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case in 291 ITR 144. This issue was also dealt by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank vs. JCIT, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’9.5 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The short issue in this ground of appeal is whether fall in value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed a…

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1130/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…n stock that stock in trade should be valued at cost or market whichever is less. It is submitted that similar claim was allowed by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case by placing reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case in 291 ITR 144. This issue was also dealt by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank vs. JCIT, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’9.5 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The short issue in this ground of appeal is whether fall in value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed a…

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1129/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…n stock that stock in trade should be valued at cost or market whichever is less. It is submitted that similar claim was allowed by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case by placing reliance on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case in 291 ITR 144. This issue was also dealt by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank vs. JCIT, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’9.5 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The short issue in this ground of appeal is whether fall in value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed a…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. (291 ITR 144) — Cited in 32 Judgments | BharatTax