CIT v. Vijaya Bank

187 ITR 541Supreme Court of India1991#917 most cited

What is CIT v. Vijaya Bank authority for?

Broken period interest paid on the purchase of securities constitutes capital expenditure and forms part of the cost of acquisition of the security, thus not being allowable as a revenue deduction.

116

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. Vijaya Bank · 187 ITR 541 · broken period interest · interest on securities · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · allowable deduction · cost of acquisition · Section 37(1) · Section 57(i) · purchase of securities

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 43BSection 115JBSection 145Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 57(i)section 2(d)section 36(2)(v)section 43dsection 41(4)section 36(1)(viia)section 46section 46ainterest on securitiessection 35dsection 36(2)right to receive

Judgments citing CIT v. Vijaya Bank

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

…ar, the contention of the assessee treating the broken period interest paid on purchase of securities as revenue expenditure has not been accepted by the revenue relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank reported in 187 ITR 541. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that any amount paid at the time of purchase is a part of the purchase consideration of the asset and thus it is the capital cost. 5.4. The bulk of a bank’s assets are held either in the form of (a) loans and advances or (b) investments. Investments form a significant portion of a bank’s assets, next only to lo…

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

…ar, the contention of the assessee treating the broken period interest paid on purchase of securities as revenue expenditure has not been accepted by the revenue relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank reported in 187 ITR 541. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that any amount paid at the time of purchase is a part of the purchase consideration of the asset and thus it is the capital cost. 5.4. The bulk of a bank’s assets are held either in the form of (a) loans and advances or (b) investments. Investments form a significant portion of a bank’s assets, next only to lo…

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…f law and held that\n\" Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct\nin holding that broken period interest is allowable as a deduction insptie of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Vijya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the\nRajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?\n4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was\npaid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest\ncomponent and the same would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure. Th…

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…f law and held that\n\" Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct\nin holding that broken period interest is allowable as a deduction insptie of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Vijya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the\nRajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?\n\n4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was\npaid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest\ncomponent and the same would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure.…

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ations of the Hon'ble Bombay High\nCourt as extracted below:\n\"(B) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the broken period\ninterest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's\ndecision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High\nCourt's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?\n\"6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders\npassed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals)\nand the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of\nAmerican Express…

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ations of the Hon'ble Bombay High\nCourt as extracted below:\n\"(B) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the broken period\ninterest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's\ndecision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High\nCourt's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?\n\"6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders\npassed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals)\nand the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of\nAmerican Express…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ations of the Hon'ble Bombay High\nCourt as extracted below:\n\"(B) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the broken period\ninterest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's\ndecision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High\nCourt's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?\n\"6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders\npassed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals)\nand the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of\nAmerican Express…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2037/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ations of the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court as extracted below:\n\"(B) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the broken period\ninterest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's\ndecision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High\nCourt's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?\n\"6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders\npassed by the CIT (Appeals) or the ITAT. In deciding this issue, CIT (Appeals)\nand the ITAT have merely followed the judgment of this Court in the case of\nAmerican Express…

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

ITA 5959/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

…reciating the fact that the Broken Period Interest forms a part of capital layout and cannot be claimed as Revenue expenditure?" 2. This is a recurring issue in the case of the assessee which is a bank. The ld.AO has relied on the case of Vijaya Bank vs ACIT 187 ITR 541(SC) for the proposition that such interest is capital outlay and hence cannot be allowed as deduction.The ld.AR vide a written submission dated 18.02.2025 has pleaded that such kind of interest arises on account of purchase of securities held as stock in trade where such security is purchased in between the due dates of interest. Buying and selli…

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

ITA 5958/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19
Section 250

…ting the\nfact that the Broken Period Interest forms a part of capital layout\nand cannot be claimed as Revenue expenditure?\"\n2. This is a recurring issue in the case of the assessee\nwhich is a bank. The ld.AO has relied on the case of Vijaya\nBank vs ACIT 187 ITR 541(SC) for the proposition that such\ninterest is capital outlay and hence cannot be allowed as\ndeduction.The ld.AR vide a written submission dated\n18.02.2025 has pleaded that such kind of interest arises on\naccount of purchase of securities held as stock in trade where\nsuch security is purchased in between the due dates of interest.\nBuying and…

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

ITA 5900/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

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)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT,DR
Section 250

…reciating the fact that the Broken Period Interest forms a part of capital layout and cannot be claimed as Revenue expenditure?" 2. This is a recurring issue in the case of the assessee which is a bank. The ld.AO has relied on the case of Vijaya Bank vs ACIT 187 ITR 541(SC) for the proposition that such interest is capital outlay and hence cannot be allowed as deduction.The ld.AR vide a written submission dated 18.02.2025 has pleaded that such kind of interest arises on account of purchase of securities held as stock in trade where such security is purchased in between the due dates of interest. Buying and selli…

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, **appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar**

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 41(1)

…# **IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI** # **BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER** # **ITANo.3754/MUM/2023 (A.Y. 2019-20)** | Kotak<br>Mahindra<br>Bank | v/s | Assessment Unit, Income Tax | | | |---------------------------------------------------|------|----------------------------------------|--|--| | Limited<br>27<br>BKC,<br>Bandra | बनाम | Department,DCIT-3(2)(2), | | | | Kurla<br>Complex<br>Bandra | | Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 554,…

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

…ssing officer vide the assessment order dated 19-3-2002 passed under section 143(3) of the Act held that claim of the assessee was required to be disallowed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl CIT [1991] 57 Taxman 152/187 ITR 541 wherein it was held that such an expenditure is required to be capitalized and cannot be allowed as a deduction. Explanation of the ` assessee that the securities be treated as stock-in-trade thereby treating the broken period interest as revenue expenditure was turned down. Consequently, the aforesaid amount was added back to the income of the a…

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

…g officer vide the assessment order dated 19-3-2002 passed under section 143(3) of the Act held that claim of the assessee was required to be disallowed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl CIT [1991] 57 Taxman 152/187 ITR 541 wherein it was held that such an expenditure is required to be capitalized and cannot be allowed as a deduction. Explanation of the Page | 53 assessee that the securities be treated as stock-in-trade thereby treating the broken period interest as revenue expenditure was turned down. Consequently, the aforesaid amount was added back to the in…

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 946/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…85 as investment written off by amortization while computing the total income. The Investment written off is not an allowable expenditure hence it is required to be withdrawn. It was clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs Add.CIT (SC) 187 ITR 541 that no part of cost investment could be treated as revenue expense. 3 The assessee had received Rs136.44 crores (371.97-235.53) from Government of India under agricultural debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 as second instalment during the year. This is required to be brought to tax. (The portion of debt which was already claimed and allowed…

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 775/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…85 as investment written off by amortization while computing the total income. The Investment written off is not an allowable expenditure hence it is required to be withdrawn. It was clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs Add.CIT (SC) 187 ITR 541 that no part of cost investment could be treated as revenue expense. 3 The assessee had received Rs136.44 crores (371.97-235.53) from Government of India under agricultural debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 as second instalment during the year. This is required to be brought to tax. (The portion of debt which was already claimed and allowed…

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal1. Ita No. 4056/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) 2. Ita No. 4194/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2015-16) 3. Ita No. 3676/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) 4. Ita No. 4057/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2017-18) 5. Ita No. 3677/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2018-19) Dcit Circle – 2(3) (1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai- 400 020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, Bkc, C-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaack4409J ........ Respondent & 6. C.O. No. 38/Mum/2024(A.Y.2016-17) 7. Ita No. 569/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2017-18) 8. Ita No. 570/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2018-19) M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, Bkc, C-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaack4409J ..... Appellant 2

Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 4056/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) 2. ITA No. 4194/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2015-16) 3. ITA No. 3676/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) 4. ITA No. 4057/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2017-18) 5. ITA No. 3677/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2018-19) DCIT Circle – 2(3) (1), Room No. 552, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Church gate, Mumbai- 400 020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 PAN: AAACK4409J ........ Respondent & 6. C.O. No. 38/Mum/2024(A.Y.2016-17…

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal1. Ita No. 4056/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) 2. Ita No. 4194/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2015-16) 3. Ita No. 3676/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2016-17) 4. Ita No. 4057/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2017-18) 5. Ita No. 3677/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2018-19) Dcit Circle – 2(3) (1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai- 400 020. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, Вкс, С-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaack4409J Vs. & Appellant 6. C.O. No. 38/Mum/2024(A.Y.2016-17) 7. Ita No. 569/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2017-18) 8. Ita No. 570/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2018-19) M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, Вкс, С-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaack4409J Respondent . Appellant

Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 4056/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2012-13) 2. ITA No. 4194/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2015-16) 3. ITA No. 3676/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2016-17) 4. ITA No. 4057/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2017-18) 5. ITA No. 3677/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ.2018-19) DCIT Circle – 2(3) (1), Room No. 552, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Church gate, Mumbai- 400 020. M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 27, ВКС, С-27, G-Block, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 PAN: AAACK4409J Vs. & Appellant 6. C.O. No. 38/Mum/2024(A.Y.2016-17) 7. ITA No. 569/Mum/2023…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176

…accounted as revenue item in the books in accordance with AS-13 issued by ICAI. However, for tax purposes, these items were treated as part of cost / consideration, as the case may be, based on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 547). Accordingly, the resultant gains / losses were offered to tax under the head capital gains. However, Ld. AO opined that the transactions would be assessable as ‘business income’. Accordingly, the surplus was reduced from the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2004-05, allowed the assessee’s ground. Ag…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176

…accounted as revenue item in the books in accordance with AS-13 issued by ICAI. However, for tax purposes, these items were treated as part of cost / consideration, as the case may be, based on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 547). Accordingly, the resultant gains / losses were offered to tax under the head capital gains. However, Ld. AO opined that the transactions would be assessable as ‘business income’. Accordingly, the surplus was reduced from the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2004-05, allowed the assessee’s ground. Ag…

Showing 1–20 of 116 · Page 1 of 6