How many judgments cite CIT v. Nedungadi?

40 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nedungadi (264 ITR 545), spanning 2012 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 36(1)(vii), Section 36(1)(viii), Section 143(3), Section 154, Section 32(1).

CIT v. Nedungadi

264 ITR 545High Court2003#2973 most cited

What is CIT v. Nedungadi authority for?

Securities held by a bank are considered stock-in-trade, and any notional loss arising from their valuation at the year-end is allowable as a deduction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nedungadi Bank · 264 ITR 545 · securities as stock-in-trade · notional loss on securities · allowable deduction · banking · RBI guidelines · valuation of securities

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 143(3)Section 154 Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

mercantile system of accounting disallowance under section 14a section 36 section 145 revenue expenditure section 154 escapement of income section 36(1)section 14a section 37 section 26 section 15

Judgments citing CIT v. Nedungadi

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…the department ought to have allowed deduction for Broken Period Interest Paid." 29.6. The assessee submitted that similar view has also been taken in inter alia the following cases: i. CIT v. Citibank N.A. (264 ITR 18) (Bom) ii. CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (264 ITR 545) (Bom); iii. Credit Lyonnais (94 ITD 401) (Bom); iv. Union Bank of India (Income Tax Reference 149 of 1995) (Bom); I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 v. Gilt Securities Trading Corporation Ltd. (ITA No. 2784/Mum/2000); vi. Gilt Securities Trading Corporation Ltd. (ITA No. 5154/Mum/2004). 29.7. The Ld.AO rejected the submissions o…

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

DCIT, DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2948/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 32(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

…h securities is considered as business loss and likewise really been depreciation on valuation of such securities, if any, is offered to tax. Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nedungadi bank Ltd., 264 ITR 545 for the principle that the appreciation/loss in the value of investment was allowable expenditure. 29. Ld. Assessing officer after considering the submissions of the assessee, formed an opinion that though it was correct that the depreciation/loss is booked in accordance with the Banking Regulation Act and the revaluation is done in accordance w…

NAGAR URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…rity cannot be treated as a purely investment. Law is well settled that the Securities held by the Bank are in the nature of Stock-in-Trade. We may like to quote here the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Nedungadi Bank Ltd., 264 ITR 545. In the said case, the Hon‟ble High Court has held that the securities held by the Bank are in the nature of stock-in-trade. Both the authorities below have merely gone on the nomenclature of the head under which the Securities are held. In our considered view, nomenclature cannot be decisive for the assessee Bank. We, therefore, hold that the lo…

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

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM A.Y.2006-07 [ by Assessee] & ITA No. 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 A.Y.2007-08 [ By AO] & [By Assessee] Vs. State Bank of India The Additional 3rd Floor, Commissionerof Income tax Corporate Centre Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Madam Cama Road Room No 545, Aykar Bhavan Nariman Point Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulkadir Jawad Wala Revenue by Shri P C Chhhotaray Special Counsel Shri Dr Kishor Dhule…

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

…Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM ITA No. 3868/MUM/2013 [ by Assessee] & ITA No . 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] Vs. ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 [ By AO] & ITA no 4105/MUM/2014 [By Assessee] A.Y .2006-07 A.Y .2007-08 State Bank of India 3 r d Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 The Add it ional Commissionerof Income tax Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Room No 545 , Aykar Bhavan Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulka…

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

…alance sheet required to be maintained in the statutory form may not be decisive or conclusive. The view of the Supreme Court has been followed by the Bombay High Court in CIT V. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334) and the Kerala High Court in CIT V. Nedungadi Bank (264 ITR 545). 3.8 In Bank's merged entity-Erstwhile Bank of Madura, Mumbai Tribunal in ITA 677 & 678/M/2014 dated December 12, 2019 for AY 2000-01 and 2001- 02 has following the order of earlier years held that depreciation claimed by assessee on securities held as stock in trade is allowable. 3.9 Thus, the Bank has correctly disallowed the amount of Rs.20…

DHNALAXMI BANK LIMITED,TRICHUR vs. THE PR CIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 56/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(33)Section 14Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Naickanal, of Income Tax, Thrissur. Thrissur. PAN : AABCT 0019J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Harikrishnanunny, CA Revenue by : Smt. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 07.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : .12.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This appeal is against the order of the PCIT, Kozhikode passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 29.3.2021 for the AY 2016-17. “1.…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.

The appeal is allowed in part, answering question no

ITA/802/2009HC Kerala14 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ehalf. 5. Question no.1 deals with valuation of unquoted securities, adopted by the assessee whether is correct or not. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd1 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd2 has 1 (2003) 264 ITR 545 (Ker.) 2 (2011) 339 ITR 606 (Ker) I.T.A. No.802/2009 -5- answered the said issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The operative portion of the reported judgments reads thus: “Nedungadi Bank Ltd (supra) For all these reasons, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the securities held…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR vs. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,

ITA/772/2009HC Kerala14 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 40A(7)

…larly, question no.1(b) deals with the deduction towards broken period interest. The claim of assessee towards broken period interest is considered in Nedungadi Bank Ltd (supra) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. South Indian Bank Ltd2 and following 1 (2003) 264 ITR 545 (Ker.) 2 (2000) 241 ITR 374 (Ker.) I.T.A. No. 772/2009 -5- the above decisions, the questions framed in 1(a) and (b) are answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. 3.1 Question No.2 deals with disallowance of gratuity payable amounting to Rs.1,63,371/-. 4. We have perused the reasoning given by the Tribunal and are satisfi…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

ITA/1065/2009HC Kerala13 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD

Section 260Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…ies at the close of the year is an allowable deduction in the computation of the profits of the appellant. This disposes of the first two questions mentioned in para. 10 above.” 4. Question nos. 2 and 3 are regarding the eligible deduction 1 (2003) 264 ITR 545 (Ker.) 2(2000) 241 ITR 374 (Kerala). ITA NO. 1065 OF 2009 - 5 - under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. It is stated by the counsel appearing for the parties that the question under consideration is covered in favour of the assessee by the reported judgment of Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank v. Commissioner of Income Ta…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR vs. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,TRICHUR.

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/178/2009HC Kerala13 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…loss suffered on account of the revaluation of the said securities at the close of the year is an allowable deduction in the computation of the profits of the appellant. This disposes of the first two questions mentioned in para. 10 (page 552) above” 2 (2003) 264 ITR 545 (Ker.) 3 (2011) 339 ITR 606 (Ker) I.T.A. No.178/2009 -7- Lord Krishna Bank Ltd (Supra) “The first question raised pertains to valuation of unquoted Government securities. Since securities involved are not quoted in the market, market price is not known. The assessee treats the unquoted Government securities as current assets and, ther…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR vs. M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHUR

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

ITA/304/2009HC Kerala13 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHURFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR

Section 260Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…essee-bank in all these cases are the stock-in-trade of the business of the assessee-banks and the notional loss suffered on account of the revaluation of the said securities at the close of the year is an allowable deduction in the 2 (2003) 264 ITR 545 (Ker.) 3 (2000) 241 ITR 374 (Ker.) ITA NO. 304 OF 2009 -6- computation of the profits of the appellant. This disposes of the first two questions mentioned in para. 10 (page 552) above.” The questions of law framed, by following the judgments referred to above, are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Income Tax Appeal st…

THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.,TRICHUR

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/1439/2009HC Kerala13 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…securities by the assessee, whether is correct or not. The question is no more res integra and is answered by following the precedents in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd2 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd3, and 2 (2003) 264 ITR 545 (Ker.) 3 (2011) 339 ITR 606 (Ker) I.T.A. No.1439/2009 -6- this Court had answered the issue in favour of the assessee. The operative portion of the reported judgments is excerpted hereunder: “Nedungadi Bank Ltd (supra) For all these reasons, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the securities…

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3041/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)

…19 on account of the amortization of the premium could not be treated as provision for ascertained liability. 23. Ld. CIT(A) considered this issue in the light of the precedent in assessee’s own case and also in the case of CIT vs. Nedungadi bank Ltd (2003) 264 ITR 545 ITA Nos. 2954 & 3041/Del/2017 10 Punjab National Bank (Kerala), and while following the same, observed that the amortization, which is as good as depreciation, merits the same treatment which is applicable to depreciation and thereby Ld. CIT(A) held the issue in favour of the assessee. 24. It is the submission of Ld. AR that the issue in quest…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2954/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 219/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

…ity as per the RBI Guideline. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 (supra) by following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. reported in 264 ITR 545 (Ker) had held that the depreciation on investment which are "Held to Maturity' and forming part of stock-in-trade is entitled to claim the same as a deduction. The CIT(A) had followed the orders of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, for Asst.Years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 (supra). No judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has been brought to our not…

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 215/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

M/S.KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEV CORPN LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 142/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 135Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…ed provision for the entire shares held in MEPL, including the advance for shares, since it also takes the character of shares. For this proposition, the Ld. AR relied upon decision of Kerala High Court in case of I.T.A. No.142/Coch/2017 Nedungadi Bank Ltd (264 ITR 545) wherein depreciation of securities was held as stock-in-trade. He also stated that the same was claimed in accordance with AS 13 concerning accounting of investments. 4. The Assessing Officer opined that advance share investment/ share application money cannot assume the character of stock-in-trade. The assessee countered the views of Assess…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 24(1), HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY vs. M/S. HOOGHLY DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., , KOLKATA

ITA 267/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)(viia)

…deduction was claimed within the four corners of law ITA No.267 & CO 41/Kol/2018 A.Y.2013-14 ACIT Cir-24(1), HGY vs. Hooghly Dist. Central Coop Bank Ltd. Page 3 and was fully allowable. The Ld. AO has cited the case of CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Ltd reported in 264 ITR 545 for the proposition that several ward may come within the village whether it be in Corporation, Municipality or Panchayat. However, the Judgement has no relevance on the facts of the appellant's case or the issue involved herein. A copy of the judgement is enclosed herewith for ready reference. Further, the observation of the AO that there can be…

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2