CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

…was allowed at the appellate stage would not ipso facto imply that the assessee was responsible for causing the delay in the proceedings resulting into refund. We may refer the decision of the Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 574 in which the assessee had raised a belated claim for deduction which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue, therefore, contended that for such delay, interest should be declined under Section 244A of the Act. In the said case also, the assessee had not made any claim for deduction of provision of bad debts in the original return.…

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

…was allowed at the appellate stage would not ipso facto imply that the assessee was responsible for causing the delay in the proceedings resulting into refund. We may refer the decision of the Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 574 in which the assessee had raised a belated claim for deduction which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue, therefore, contended that for such delay, interest should be declined under Section 244A of the Act. In the said case also, the assessee had not made any claim for deduction of provision of bad debts in the original return.…

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

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

…` 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

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

…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…

DDIT (IT)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 11 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

…expenditure. The same view has been followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Citi Bank N.A. (264 ITR 18). The very same view has been adopted by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd, and Nedungadi Bank Ltd. reported in 241 ITR 374 204 ITR 545 23 CO No. 161/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year 1993-94) respectively. 11. We find that this issue is now almost settled. As far as the bank is concerned, broken period Interest paid by it on the securities acquired by the bank in its course of business as trading stock need to be allowed as revenue expenditure in computing its taxable incom…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

…the assessee has taken the stand, supported by elaborate arguments, that the delay in refund was not attributable to the assessee. The assessee had also made references to various judgments of Hon’ble Courts above, such as CIT vs South Indian Bank Ltd [(2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker)], Ajanta Mtg Ltd vs DCIT [(2017) 391 ITR 33 (Guj)], and ITO vs Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)]. It was thus clearly a seriously contended issue as to whether or not the assessee was responsible for delay in refund of tax, and, as such, whether interest under section 244A could have been declined to the assessee at all. None of these sub…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

…the assessee has taken the stand, supported by elaborate arguments, that the delay in refund was not attributable to the assessee. The assessee had also made references to various judgments of Hon’ble Courts above, such as CIT vs South Indian Bank Ltd [(2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker)], Ajanta Mtg Ltd vs DCIT [(2017) 391 ITR 33 (Guj)], and ITO vs Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)]. It was thus clearly a seriously contended issue as to whether or not the assessee was responsible for delay in refund of tax, and, as such, whether interest under section 244A could have been declined to the assessee at all. None of these sub…

H.U.F. OF HIS LATE HIGHNESS SIR J.M. SCINDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE -18(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Us :-

…was allowed at the appellate stage would not ipso facto imply that the assessee was responsible for causing the delay in the proceedings resulting into refund. We may refer the decision of the Kerala High Court in case of CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 574 in which the assessee had raised a belated claim for deduction which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue, therefore, contended that for such delay, interest should be declined under Section 244A of the Act. In the said case also, the assessee had not made any claim for deduction of provision of bad debts in the original return.…

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

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6271/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1995-96) Dcit Circle-2(2)(1) State Bank Of India R. No. 545, Aaykar Bhavan Financial Reporting & Tax. Deptt. बिाम/ 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Rd. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-8577-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Vijay Jaiswal– Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri C. Naresh– Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

…e appellate stage would not ipso facto imply that the assessee was responsible for causing the delay in the proceedings resulting into refund. We may refer the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., reported in (2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker) in which the assessee had raised a belated claim for deduction which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue, therefore, contended that for such delay, interest should be declined under Section 244A of the Act. In the said case also, the assessee had not made any claim for deduction of provision of bad debts in the original r…

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodtata Chemicals Limited Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Bombay House, 24, 384, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody, Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan – Aaact4059M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Atul Suraiya, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swami, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2019

…that the period of delay attributable to the assessee shall be excluded from the period for which the interest is payable. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker). In the case before the Hon‟ble High Court, the assessee had for the first time raised a claim for deduction of provision for bad debts as on 10.01.2001 in the course of the assessment proceedings, which was rejected by the A.O. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the assesses claim for deduction and remanded the matter to the file of the A.O. Re…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

…the appeal filed by the assessee. 4.During the course of hearing before us,Authorised Representative(AR)stated that the AO had ignored the specific direction issued by CIT,that the stand taken by the AO was contrary to the decisions of south India Bank Ltd. (340 ITR 574), ACC Ltd. (2012- TIOL-120-ITAT-Mum) and Union Bank of India (ITA/No.2522/Mum/2011).With regard to decision,relied upon the FAA i.e. Assam Roofing Ltd.(supra) the AR stated that the above mentioned decision was distinguishable, in that case assessee had voluntarily paid tax on subsidy, that the assessee had made the claim in the return itself by…