CIT v. Vijaya Bank

187 ITR 541Supreme Court of India1991#917 most cited

What is CIT v. Vijaya Bank authority for?

The 'broken period interest' paid on securities is considered part of the capital outlay for acquiring those securities and cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure or business deduction. It must be capitalized.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vijaya Bank · 187 ITR 541 · SC · broken period interest · securities · capital outlay · business deduction · capitalization · stock-in-trade · revenue expenditure

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalaburagi vs. M/S Krishna Grameen Bank, Gulbarga

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1189/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Smt.Shettal, Advocate

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.1189/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 The Asst.Commissioner of Income- M/s.Krishna Grameen Bank tax, Circle – 1, Balaburagi. Head Office – Kusanoor Road, v. B.B.No.4, Gulbarga Karnataka – 585 105. PAN : AAGFK6964K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Respondent by : Smt.Shettal, Advocate Date of Date of Hearing : 14.12.2020 Pronouncement : 15.12.2020 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the Department is directed against CIT(…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. State Bank of India(Sbi)

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/27/2013HC Karnataka08 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260A

…assessment for the assessment year 1999-00 and 2000- 01 on the ground that same were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘VIJAYA BANK LTD., VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX’, 187 ITR 541 (SC), wherein it was held that price paid for securities including broken period interest was in the nature of capital outlay and no part of it can be set off as expenditure against income accruing on the securities. Thereupon the Assessing officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2005 for assessment years 1999-00 a…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. State Bank of India(Sbi)

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/26/2013HC Karnataka08 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260A

…assessment for the assessment year 1999-00 and 2000- 01 on the ground that same were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘VIJAYA BANK LTD., VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX’, 187 ITR 541 (SC), wherein it was held that price paid for securities including broken period interest was in the nature of capital outlay and no part of it can be set off as expenditure against income accruing on the securities. Thereupon the Assessing officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2005 for assessment years 1999-00 a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 781 & 782/Mum/2018 (Assessment year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) ACIT-2(3)(2), Vs M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Room No. 552, 5th Floor, 27, BKC, C-27, “G Block Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 PAN : AAACK4409J APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri B. Srinivas, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri FV Irani / Chetan Kaka-ARs Date of hearing 31-07-2019 Date of pronouncement 27-08-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Member : 1. These…

Dcb Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 785/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit-2(3)(1), R.No. 552, 5Th M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. (Formerly Development Road, Mumbai-400020. Credit Card Ltd.) 6Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacd1461F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. Acit-2(3)(1), R.No. 552, (Formerly Development Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Credit Card Ltd.) 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Tower A, Peninsula 400020. Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aaacd1461F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 28

…st is allowable expenditure and held as under : “In the present case, the Department brought to tax such amount u/s 28 right from the inception. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the judgment in Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) did not apply to the facts of the present case. We find that the assessee's method of accounting does not result in loss of tax/revenue for the Department. That, there was no need to interfere with the method of accounting adopted by the assessee bank. That, the judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC), had no applica…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dcb Bank Limited (Formerly Development Credit Bank Limited), Mumbai

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

ITA 707/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit-2(3)(1), R.No. 552, 5Th M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. (Formerly Development Road, Mumbai-400020. Credit Card Ltd.) 6Th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacd1461F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Dcb Bank Ltd. Acit-2(3)(1), R.No. 552, (Formerly Development Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Credit Card Ltd.) 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Tower A, Peninsula 400020. Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aaacd1461F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 28

…st is allowable expenditure and held as under : “In the present case, the Department brought to tax such amount u/s 28 right from the inception. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the judgment in Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) did not apply to the facts of the present case. We find that the assessee's method of accounting does not result in loss of tax/revenue for the Department. That, there was no need to interfere with the method of accounting adopted by the assessee bank. That, the judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC), had no applica…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 1162/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 28Section 44

…t the investment activity of the appellant is separate and distinguished from life insurance business carried on by the appellant company rejected the claim of the appellant. The appellant has distinguished the judgment in Vijaya Bank Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 541 since the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. was with reference to treatment of interest receivable on the security vis-à-vis its break-up into pre-acquisition period and post-acquisition period and the issue regarding amortized portion of investment “held to maturity” was never an issue before the Hon’ble Supreme C…

The Burdwan Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Burdwan

In the result, these three appeals of assessee for the A

ITA 2405/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Pratp Kanti Ghosh, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pijush Mukherjee, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 263

…355 (SC), CIT vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank 251 ITR 194 (SC) and Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. ITO 251 ITR 522 (SC) and distinguished the decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (1991) 94 CTR (SC) 216 : (1991) 187 ITR 541 (SC). The Hon’ble Court finally concluded that Securities held by banks constitute their stock-in-trade and consequently the notional loss claimed by the assessee-banks on valuation of such securities at the close of the year is allowable as deduction in computing the taxable profits. The Hon’ble Court distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Su…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sharad Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Solapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1240/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 145Section 260ASection 43D

…td., cannot be treated as a purely investment. The security held by the bank is in the nature of stock in trade. 4. In view of the above, reliance placed by the department on the judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 187 ITR 541 (SC) is misplaced. Thus, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and the same is therefore, dismissed.” In view of the above binding precedents, we hold that the addition on account of amortization of premium on HTM securities is allowable in favour of the assessee. We therefore uphold the order of CIT(A) on account of both th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Lokmangal Co-Op. Bank Ltd

In the result, C.O. No.101/PN/2014 in the case of Lokmangal Co-op

ITA 1097/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 43D

…s to be dealt with at the time of sale of securities and not in the year of purchase of securities. In coming to his conclusion, the Assessing Officer relied upon the ratio of the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 541 (SC) as also the judgement of the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., 316 ITR 391. 15. The CIT(A) has also affirmed the aforesaid stand of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) followed the judgement of the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (supra), which had dissented from the…

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7485/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhcentral Bank Of India D C I T - 2(1)(2) 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent Ac I T - 2(1)(2) Central Bank Of India Room No. 562, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyarFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 1Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 211Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member Central Bank of India D C I T - 2(1)(2) 4th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 PAN – AAACC2498P Appellant Respondent AC I T - 2(1)(2) Central Bank of India Room No. 562, 5th Floor 4th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 PAN – AAACC2498P Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Rajnikant V. Chaniyar Revenue by: Ms. S. Padmaja Date of Hearing: 12.06.2018 Da…

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhcentral Bank Of India D C I T - 2(1)(2) 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent Ac I T - 2(1)(2) Central Bank Of India Room No. 562, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyarFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 1Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 211Section 36(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member Central Bank of India D C I T - 2(1)(2) 4th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 PAN – AAACC2498P Appellant Respondent AC I T - 2(1)(2) Central Bank of India Room No. 562, 5th Floor 4th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 PAN – AAACC2498P Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Rajnikant V. Chaniyar Revenue by: Ms. S. Padmaja Date of Hearing: 12.06.2018 Da…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ra 4) CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 416 (Bom) (para 7) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) (para 4)Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) (para 2)Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) (para 2)Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) (para 4). 2.5. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT )2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) held as under:- “This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated September 23, 2015 passed by the Income- tax A…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ra 4) CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 416 (Bom) (para 7) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) (para 4)Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) (para 2)Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) (para 2)Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) (para 4). 2.5. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT )2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) held as under:- “This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated September 23, 2015 passed by the Income- tax A…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ra 4) CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 416 (Bom) (para 7) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) (para 4)Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) (para 2)Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) (para 2)Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) (para 4). 2.5. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT )2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) held as under:- “This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated September 23, 2015 passed by the Income- tax A…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ra 4) CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 416 (Bom) (para 7) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) (para 4)Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) (para 2)Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) (para 2)Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) (para 4). 2.5. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT )2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) held as under:- “This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated September 23, 2015 passed by the Income- tax A…

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

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 6022/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyariFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

…re originally completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the assessments C.O NOs. 301, 302 & 303/MUM/2017 M/s. Central Bank of India were reopened merely on a change of opinion observing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. C.I.T [187 ITR 541] held that broken period of interest is part of capital outlay for acquisition of securities and is therefore not allowable. Ld.A.O also referred to the C.B.D.T circular No. 665/1993. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, when the assessments were completed originally, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was very much availab…

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

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 6021/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyariFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

…re originally completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the assessments C.O NOs. 301, 302 & 303/MUM/2017 M/s. Central Bank of India were reopened merely on a change of opinion observing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. C.I.T [187 ITR 541] held that broken period of interest is part of capital outlay for acquisition of securities and is therefore not allowable. Ld.A.O also referred to the C.B.D.T circular No. 665/1993. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, when the assessments were completed originally, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was very much availab…

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

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 6020/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. ChaniyariFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

…re originally completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the assessments C.O NOs. 301, 302 & 303/MUM/2017 M/s. Central Bank of India were reopened merely on a change of opinion observing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. C.I.T [187 ITR 541] held that broken period of interest is part of capital outlay for acquisition of securities and is therefore not allowable. Ld.A.O also referred to the C.B.D.T circular No. 665/1993. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, when the assessments were completed originally, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was very much availab…

M/S Flipkart India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 131

…s not to a related party and therefore those provisions or any other provisions of the Act dealing with transactions with related parties are not attracted. He drew our attention to decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT 187 ITR 541(SC). The Assessee in that case purchased securities during the relevant previous year and derived income from such securities. While computing income from securities, the Assessee bifurcated the purchase price it paid for purchasing the securities as comprising of its actual value and interest that had accrued on those securities upto the date of…