CIT v. Vijaya Bank

ITA 12/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

…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…

Sundaram Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

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

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

ITA 11/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2013-14

…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…

Sundaram Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

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

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

ITA 10/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

…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…

Sundaram Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

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

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

ITA 4278/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

…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…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

…n allowable deduction?" 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) was right in directing to delete BP| without considering the decision of honorable supreme court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v/s Addl. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 547(S. C.) wherein it is held that BPl is a part of capital outlay for acquisition of securities and hence not an allowable deduction?" 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) was right in directing to delete premium amortized without appreciating the fact that the HTM category of Securities are held as i…

ACIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

…n allowable deduction?" 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) was right in directing to delete BP| without considering the decision of honorable supreme court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v/s Addl. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 547(S. C.) wherein it is held that BPl is a part of capital outlay for acquisition of securities and hence not an allowable deduction?" 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) was right in directing to delete premium amortized without appreciating the fact that the HTM category of Securities are held as i…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar vs. M/S the Citizen Urban Co- Operative Bank Limited, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 62/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145Section 45Q

…s regard, the AO, while making the addition, placed reliance on “Bank of Rajasthan” (supra). In “Bank of Rajasthan”, (supra), “American Express International Banking Corporation vs. CIT”, 258 ITR 601 (Bombay) was dissented from and “Vijaya Bank Ltd. vs. CIT”, 187 ITR 541 (Supreme Court) was relied on. In “American Express” (supra) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court noted that the broken period interest received by the assessee bank was charged to tax as business income and, therefore, the deduction for payment made for BPI at the time of purchase of these securities could not be denied. The department could not justif…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. State Bank of Hyderabad, Hyderabad

The appeal is dismissed'

ITTA/378/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2023

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

For Appellant: SRl. J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX)For Respondent: Mr. K.P.AMARNATH REDDY

Section 151Section 260

…ccepted the fact that respondent had been holding the securities as stock-in- trade. Circula-r No.665 dated 05.10. 1993 of the CBDT has clarified thc decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of rncone Tax, Bangalore ((1991) 187 ITR 541 (SC)). CBDT has clarified that where the banks are holding securities as stock-in-trade and not as investments, principles of law enunciated in Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangaiore ((1991) 187 ITR 5+ I (SC)) -wouid not be airplicable. Thercfrrre, CBDT has clarified that assessrng cfficer sl.rould determine on the…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2937/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 18

…d by the assessee bank and the deduction of Rs 43,15,60,415/- claimed was rightly disallowed. Page No. | 3 ITA NO. 2937 & 2919/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT. (1991) 187 ITR 541 (SC) in which it has been clearly stated that BPI is part of capital outlay for acquisition of securities. Further, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.(2009) 316 ITR 391 (Rajasthan) came to the conclusion that the amount paid by the bank towards BPI on securities purchased by it is not an allowable business…

DCIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3574/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ction? "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was right in directing to delete Broken Period Interest without considering the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. V/s Addl. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 547 (S.C) wherein it is held that BPI is a part of capital outlay for acquisition of securities and hence not an allowable deduction? " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in law in deleting the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3476/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ction? "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was right in directing to delete Broken Period Interest without considering the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. V/s Addl. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 547 (S.C) wherein it is held that BPI is a part of capital outlay for acquisition of securities and hence not an allowable deduction? " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in law in deleting the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2726/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

ITA 2725/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

…Court is as under:- ―Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction in spite of the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?‖ 5.2. The Hon‟ble High Court disposed of the above question by observing as under:- ―4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was paid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest com…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2676/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

…Court is as under:- ―Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction in spite of the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?‖ 5.2. The Hon‟ble High Court disposed of the above question by observing as under:- ―4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was paid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest com…

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2675/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

…Court is as under:- ―Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction in spite of the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?‖ 5.2. The Hon‟ble High Court disposed of the above question by observing as under:- ―4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was paid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest com…

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

…Court is as under:- ―Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction in spite of the Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391)?‖ 5.2. The Hon‟ble High Court disposed of the above question by observing as under:- ―4. It appears that the assessee had purchased securities on which certain interest was paid. The Revenue argued that the entire cost of security would include such interest com…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM ITA No. 3499/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, 545, Aykar Bhavan, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 MK road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACY2068D ITA No. 3237/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Yes Bank Limited 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, Circle 2(2)(2) 545, Aaykar Bhavan, Discovery of India, Dr. AB Road, Vs. Wo…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT