CIT v. State Bank of India

261 ITR 82Reported decision1988#8289 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 12ABSection 13(1)Section 80GSection 12ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 10(23C)Section 11(1)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 11(1)(c)section 60section 12ab(1)(b)(i)section 12ab(1)(b)(ii)cancellation of registrationsection 11(1)(a)section 12ab(1)section 12ab(1)(b)section 13(1)penalty proceedings initiatedsection 11(1)section 10(23c)

Judgments citing CIT v. State Bank of India

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 128/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी "वजय पाल राव, उपा" य" एवं "ी मधुसूदन साव"डया, लेखा सद" य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), PAN: ABLPA2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of hearing: 0…

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 127/HYD/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी "वजय पाल राव, उपा" य" एवं "ी मधुसूदन साव"डया, लेखा सद" य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), PAN: ABLPA2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of hearing: 0…

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CETRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 126/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी "वजय पाल राव, उपा" य" एवं "ी मधुसूदन साव"डया, लेखा सद" य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), PAN: ABLPA2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of hearing: 0…

SHREE CAMBAY SWETAMBER VISHA SHRIMALI JAIN SAMAJ SAHAYAK TRUST, ,MUMBAI vs. COMMMSSIONER OF INCOMETAX(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 752/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 80G

…red outside India. Section 11(1)(a) cannot be invoked only on the ground that the trust deed provides for activities outside India. Some decisions on this Principle are: A. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of India reported in (1988) 169 ITR 298, considered the issue whether a trust for charitable purposes in India and abroad can claim exemption from its income where the trustees have discretion to apply the income either in India or abroad? Hon’ble Court observed that the trust deed provided, at the discretion of the trustees, to give 45 per cent of the income to the University of Athen…

HEMLATA CHARITIES,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. WARD 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 6344/MUM/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 12Section 80Section 80G

…red outside India. Section 11(1)(a) cannot be invoked only on the ground that the trust deed provides for activities outside India. Some decisions on this Principle are: A. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of India reported in (1988) 169 ITR 298, considered the issue whether a trust for charitable purposes in India and abroad can claim exemption from its income where the trustees have discretion to apply the income either in India or abroad? Hon’ble Court observed that the trust deed provided, at the discretion of the trustees, to give 45 per cent of the income to the University of Athen…

SILA FOR CHANGE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 4275/MUM/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Sila For Change Foundation Commissioner Of Income-Tax A-301, 3Rd Floor, (Exemption) Neelam Centre, 601, 6Th Floor, Plot 249A, Worli, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400030. Mtnl Building, Pan: Abgcs5333L Vs. Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Maharashtra- 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya- AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule- CIT D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)

…ion; outside India. Section 11(1)(a) cannot be invoked only on the ground that the trust deed provides for activities outside India. Some decisions on this Principle are: A. Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of Indiareported in (1988) 169 ITR 298, considered the issue whether a trust for charitable purposes in India and abroad can claim exemption from its income where the trustees have discretion to apply the income either in India or abroad? Hon‟ble Court observed that the trust deed provided, at the discretion of the trustees, to give 45 per cent of the income to the University of Athen…

SILA FOR CHANGE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 4274/MUM/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Sila For Change Foundation Commissioner Of Income-Tax A-301, 3Rd Floor, (Exemption) Neelam Centre, 601, 6Th Floor, Plot 249A, Worli, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400030. Mtnl Building, Pan: Abgcs5333L Vs. Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Maharashtra- 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya- AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule- CIT D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)

…ion; outside India. Section 11(1)(a) cannot be invoked only on the ground that the trust deed provides for activities outside India. Some decisions on this Principle are: A. Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of Indiareported in (1988) 169 ITR 298, considered the issue whether a trust for charitable purposes in India and abroad can claim exemption from its income where the trustees have discretion to apply the income either in India or abroad? Hon‟ble Court observed that the trust deed provided, at the discretion of the trustees, to give 45 per cent of the income to the University of Athen…

THE UNITED WORLD COLLEGE COMMITTEE (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ACIT EXEM. CIRCLE 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 The United World College Committee Acit Exem., Circle 2, (India), Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, Vs. Ground Floor, Mahindra Towers, Parel, Worli, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400018. Pan No. Aaatt 3774 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R D Onkar/Viksit Bhargava
Section 11(2)Section 143(3)

…purpose. The Ld. Assessing Officer further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Assessing Officer further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Assessing Officer further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. SBI 169 ITR 298 CIT v. SBI 169 ITR 298 Bombay High Court in the case of The United World College Committee (India) The United World College Committee (India 3 (Bombay), wherein it is held that accumulation contemplated u/s wherein it is held that accumulation contemplated u/s wherein it is held that accumulation contemplated u/s 11 has to be conscious accumula 1…

M/S. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…there is a business interest in incurring those expenditure and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) is squarely applicable. 8.4The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of India (261 ITR 82), while dealing with the issue of allowability of subsidy granted by it to its subsidiary banks, held that by grant of subsidies it has got the business advantage and therefore, allowed deduction by holding as under: "Lastly, by giving subsidy to the State Bank of Patiala, the State Bank of Saurashtra, etc., for opening branches, assets were creat…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 5, BANGALORE vs. M/S. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…there is a business interest in incurring those expenditure and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) is squarely applicable. 8.4The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of India (261 ITR 82), while dealing with the issue of allowability of subsidy granted by it to its subsidiary banks, held that by grant of subsidies it has got the business advantage and therefore, allowed deduction by holding as under: "Lastly, by giving subsidy to the State Bank of Patiala, the State Bank of Saurashtra, etc., for opening branches, assets were creat…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD , BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…there is a business interest in incurring those expenditure and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) is squarely applicable. 8.4The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of India (261 ITR 82), while dealing with the issue of allowability of subsidy granted by it to its subsidiary banks, held that by grant of subsidies it has got the business advantage and therefore, allowed deduction by holding as under: "Lastly, by giving subsidy to the State Bank of Patiala, the State Bank of Saurashtra, etc., for opening branches, assets were creat…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD , BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…there is a business interest in incurring those expenditure and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) is squarely applicable. 8.4The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of India (261 ITR 82), while dealing with the issue of allowability of subsidy granted by it to its subsidiary banks, held that by grant of subsidies it has got the business advantage and therefore, allowed deduction by holding as under: "Lastly, by giving subsidy to the State Bank of Patiala, the State Bank of Saurashtra, etc., for opening branches, assets were creat…

KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…there is a business interest in incurring those expenditure and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) is squarely applicable. 8.4The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of India (261 ITR 82), while dealing with the issue of allowability of subsidy granted by it to its subsidiary banks, held that by grant of subsidies it has got the business advantage and therefore, allowed deduction by holding as under: "Lastly, by giving subsidy to the State Bank of Patiala, the State Bank of Saurashtra, etc., for opening branches, assets were creat…

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds of appeal Nos

ITA 1372/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raothe Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd., ‘Uthunga’, No.1, Pmk Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018. … Appellant Pan:Aabat 0269 J Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…ere is a business interest in incurring those expenditure and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) is squarely applicable. 8.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of India (261 ITR 82), while dealing with the issue of allowability of subsidy granted by it to its subsidiary banks, held that by grant of subsidies it has got the business advantage and therefore, allowed deduction by holding as under: “Lastly, by giving subsidy to the State Bank of Patiala, the State Bank of Saurashtra, etc., for opening branches, assets were creat…