CIT v. New Citizen Bank of India Limited

58 ITR 468Reported decision#25293 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 244A Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 43B Section 80-IA

Judgments citing CIT v. New Citizen Bank of India Limited

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

…CIT (2010-TIOL-781-HC-DEL-IT) (Del) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 2. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) P. Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others (159 ITR 856) (Supreme Court) 3. CIT v. New Citizen Bank of India Limited and another (58 ITR 468) (Bom) 4. CIT v. Central Popular Assurance Co. Ltd. (7 ITR 293) (Sind) 5. Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (81 ITR 105) (Supreme Court) 6. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. CWT (124 ITR 799) (Bom) 16.2. The assessee submitted that Rule 6E has to be interpreted in line with Section 43D which cannot override the RBI guidelin…

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

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…er, next is the position of notification and the last is letters or approvals. It was argued with supporting case laws that the rules must be sub-servient to the provisions of the section enacted in a statute. In the case of CIT vs. New Citizen Bank of India, 58 ITR 468 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has also observed, “when a rule is made under a particular section it is the section which controls and governs the rule and the rule must be construed in the light of the decision and not view-versa”. So the basic question is that once because of the letter or notification the provisions of the statute have been nega…