CIT v. Vashist\nChay Vyapar Limited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(4),MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. IDBI BANK LTD, PARTH PLAZAMORBI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…that even in the absence of specific provision like 43D and Rule 6EA interest not recognised based on RBI guidelines cannot be taxed. Reference may be had to the decision of SC in the case of CIT v Vashist CO.No.28/Mum/2024 IDBI Bank Ltd. Chay Vyapar Limited 301 CTR 263 and the Bombay High Court in the case of Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited 379 ITR 24. This issue is covered in its favour by the Jurisdictional ITAT Mumbai in case of State Bank of India (ITA 3644 and 4563/Mum/2016), Mumbai ITAT in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd (ITA 3215/Mum/2019),State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (ITA 3033/Mum/2019) and ITAT Kol…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(4), MUMBAI vs. IDBI BANK LTD, PANCHANANTALA ROAD

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the\nRevenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

…een held in various decisions\nthat even in the absence of specific provision like 43D and Rule 6EA\ninterest not recognised based on RBI guidelines cannot be taxed.\nReference may be had to the decision of SC in the case of CIT v Vashist\nChay Vyapar Limited 301 CTR 263 and the Bombay High Court\nin the case of Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited 379 ITR 24.\nThis issue is covered in its favour by the Jurisdictional ITAT Mumbai in\ncase of State Bank of India (ITA 3644_and_4563/Mum/2016),\nMumbai ITAT in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd (ITA\n3215/Mum/2019),State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (ITA\n3033/Mum/2019) and IT…

ACIT 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. IDBI BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.5900, 5958 & 5959/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2021-22, 2018-19 & 2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd., Income Tax -3(4), Apulki Cornermenon, Mumbai Piston Compound, Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) प्रत्याक्षेप सं../C.O. No.280/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5959/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Idbi Bank Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Apulki Cornermenon, Of Income Tax -3(4), Piston Compound, Mumbai Toap 416122, Kolhapur Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabci8842G (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

…that even in the absence of specific provision like 43D and Rule 6EA interest not recognised based on RBI guidelines cannot be taxed. Reference may be had to the decision of SC in the case of CIT v Vashist CO.No.28/Mum/2024 IDBI Bank Ltd. Chay Vyapar Limited 301 CTR 263 and the Bombay High Court in the case of Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited 379 ITR 24. This issue is covered in its favour by the Jurisdictional ITAT Mumbai in case of State Bank of India (ITA 3644 and 4563/Mum/2016), Mumbai ITAT in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd (ITA 3215/Mum/2019),State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (ITA 3033/Mum/2019) and ITAT Kol…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

…e case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] (225 ITR 802). 8.5 The learned PCIT erred in not following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Vashist Chay Vyapar Ltd. [330 ITR 440] affirmed the Supreme Court in 301 CTR 263. 8.6 The learned PCIT erred in not accepting the Bank's argument that Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26 November 2008 was applicable to the Bank's case. 8.7 The learned PCIT erred in not appreciating that the amortizations of premium paid on securities in HTM category is in accordance with RBI guidelines and hence the same was in accordance with…