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

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4355/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bank Of Baroda Dcit-2(1)(1) Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Bank Of Baroda Dcit-2(1)(1) Vs. Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road

Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT-2(1)(1) M/s Bank of Baroda Room No. 561, 5th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 PAN: AAACB1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s Bank of Baroda DCIT-2(1)(1) Room No. 561, 5th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 PAN: AAACB1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT-2(1)(1)…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5604/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhita No.5604/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2009-10) Dcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Corporate Centre, Bandra Vs. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Revenue By : Shri C. Naresh (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, [For Short The Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 30.06.2016 & 22.11. 2011 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. The Revenue In Both The Appeals Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal; Hence Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Decided By Common Order. For Appreciation Of Fact, We Are Discussing The Fact For Assessment Year 2008-09. Though The Revenue Has Raised Two Ground Of Appeal, However, As Per Our Considered View The Sole Ground Of Appeal Is Whether Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Broken Period Interest Expenditure. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Banking Company. The Assessee Is Carrying Banking Business. The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Was Completed On 30.12.2010 Under Ita No. 5604/Mum/2016- M/S Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri C. Naresh (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…d. DR of the Revenue argued that the assessee is not entitled for deduction on account of broken period interest expenses. In support of her submissions the ld DR for the revenue relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank vs. ACIT [187 ITR 541 (SC)]. The ld DR further submits that initially the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. CIT (258 ITR 601) has allowed broken period interest expenses, however, the same has been distinguished by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Bank of Rajasthan (2009) 178 Taxman 304 (Raj). On…

M/S Pumarth Properties & Holding (P) Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 954/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 132Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…we are concerned with the assessment years prior to insertion of Section 94(7)vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002. We are of the view that the AO had erred in disallowing the loss. In the case of Vijaya Bank v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [1991] 187 ITR 541, it was held by this Court that where the assessee buys securities at a price determined with reference to their actual value as well as interest accrued thereon till the date of purchase the entire price paid would be in the nature of capital outlay and no part of it can be set off as expenditure against income accruing on those securities. The…

ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata vs. The West Bengal State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 A.C.I.T. Circle-40, Kolkata.………………..……….……………………………………….…….……...Appellant 2nd Floor 3, Govt. Place (W) Kolkata – 700 001 The West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Limited…………..……………………..…. Respondent 24A, Waterloo Street Kolkata – 700 069 [PAN : AAAAT 7072 N] Appearances by: Shri N.C. Mondal, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue.…

The Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 3853/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…questions of law before the Hon’ble High Court was as under :- “(B) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, inspite of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Vijay Bank (187 ITR 541) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan (316 ITR 391) ?” The said question of law is pari materia to the issue before us and the Hon'ble High Court has answered the same against the Revenue in the following words :- “6. Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the C…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2010-

ITA 1407/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit – 2(3)(1), M/S Dena Bank, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Accounts Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Dena Bank Building, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 17-B, Mumbai - 400020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aaacd4249D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ananthan (Dr) Assessee By : Smt. Lalitha Rameshwaran( Ar) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2018

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha Rameshwaran( AR)For Respondent: Shri Ananthan (DR)
Section 115JSection 142Section 143

…to assessed bank. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the broken period interest paid by the assessee is allowable inspite of Hon’ble Supreme court decision in the 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. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that issue No. 1 of the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the assessee’s own case ITA No. 3676/M/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 and issue No. 2 is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 249/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

…No. B read as under: (B) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, in spite of the hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541(SC) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 391? 11.1. The Hon’ble High Court answered the question as under: Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In deciding…

Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 5706/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am)

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

…No. B read as under: (B) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, in spite of the hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541(SC) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 391? 11.1. The Hon’ble High Court answered the question as under: Even as far as question (B) is concerned, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In deciding…

ACIT, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1527/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Sankaralingam, CIT

…Representative, submitted that the interest paid on purchase of securities is capital outlay. Therefore, the Assessing 9 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos. 1496 & 27/Mds/13 Officer by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Vijaya Bank in 187 ITR 541, disallowed the claim of the assessee. 14. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The payment of interest for purchase of securities was subject matter of discussion by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case. The Madras High Court found that the expenses incurred…

ACIT, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1496/CHNY/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Sankaralingam, CIT

…Representative, submitted that the interest paid on purchase of securities is capital outlay. Therefore, the Assessing 9 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos. 1496 & 27/Mds/13 Officer by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Vijaya Bank in 187 ITR 541, disallowed the claim of the assessee. 14. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The payment of interest for purchase of securities was subject matter of discussion by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case. The Madras High Court found that the expenses incurred…

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. Addl. CIT, Trichy

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1341/CHNY/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Sankaralingam, CIT

…Representative, submitted that the interest paid on purchase of securities is capital outlay. Therefore, the Assessing 9 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos. 1496 & 27/Mds/13 Officer by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Vijaya Bank in 187 ITR 541, disallowed the claim of the assessee. 14. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The payment of interest for purchase of securities was subject matter of discussion by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case. The Madras High Court found that the expenses incurred…

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. Addl. CIT, Trichy

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1340/CHNY/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Sankaralingam, CIT

…Representative, submitted that the interest paid on purchase of securities is capital outlay. Therefore, the Assessing 9 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos. 1496 & 27/Mds/13 Officer by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Vijaya Bank in 187 ITR 541, disallowed the claim of the assessee. 14. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The payment of interest for purchase of securities was subject matter of discussion by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case. The Madras High Court found that the expenses incurred…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. JCIT, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2035/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…securities. The Ld. AO treated the interest paid on investments for the purchase of securities as capital in nature and disallowed Rs. 3,70,47,072/-. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer relied on the Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC). The Ld. AR argued that the Broken Period interest on securities is revenue expenditure as per the direction of the RBI that interest paid at the time of purchases of securities is revenue expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the decision of jurisdictional High Court and decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessme…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. JCIT, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2034/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…securities. The Ld. AO treated the interest paid on investments for the purchase of securities as capital in nature and disallowed Rs. 3,70,47,072/-. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer relied on the Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC). The Ld. AR argued that the Broken Period interest on securities is revenue expenditure as per the direction of the RBI that interest paid at the time of purchases of securities is revenue expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the decision of jurisdictional High Court and decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessme…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1804/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…securities. The Ld. AO treated the interest paid on investments for the purchase of securities as capital in nature and disallowed Rs. 3,70,47,072/-. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer relied on the Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC). The Ld. AR argued that the Broken Period interest on securities is revenue expenditure as per the direction of the RBI that interest paid at the time of purchases of securities is revenue expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the decision of jurisdictional High Court and decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessme…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1803/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…securities. The Ld. AO treated the interest paid on investments for the purchase of securities as capital in nature and disallowed Rs. 3,70,47,072/-. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer relied on the Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC). The Ld. AR argued that the Broken Period interest on securities is revenue expenditure as per the direction of the RBI that interest paid at the time of purchases of securities is revenue expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the decision of jurisdictional High Court and decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessme…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1802/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…securities. The Ld. AO treated the interest paid on investments for the purchase of securities as capital in nature and disallowed Rs. 3,70,47,072/-. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer relied on the Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC). The Ld. AR argued that the Broken Period interest on securities is revenue expenditure as per the direction of the RBI that interest paid at the time of purchases of securities is revenue expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the decision of jurisdictional High Court and decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessme…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1801/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…securities. The Ld. AO treated the interest paid on investments for the purchase of securities as capital in nature and disallowed Rs. 3,70,47,072/-. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer relied on the Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC). The Ld. AR argued that the Broken Period interest on securities is revenue expenditure as per the direction of the RBI that interest paid at the time of purchases of securities is revenue expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the decision of jurisdictional High Court and decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessme…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1671/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…securities. The Ld. AO treated the interest paid on investments for the purchase of securities as capital in nature and disallowed Rs. 3,70,47,072/-. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer relied on the Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs. Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC). The Ld. AR argued that the Broken Period interest on securities is revenue expenditure as per the direction of the RBI that interest paid at the time of purchases of securities is revenue expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the decision of jurisdictional High Court and decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessme…

The Hindustan Co Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1501/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1501/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009­10) The Hindustan Co­Operative Bank Ltd. Jt. Cit­13(3), बनाम/ 4­A, Devi Galli, Baburao Bobde Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Lokhand Bazar, Mumbai­400 009 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabat 4355 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Amar Gahlot, Shri S. Sriram ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raja सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 01.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)­24, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.11.2013, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009­ 10 Vide Order Dated 21.12.2011. 2. The Assessee, A Co­Operative Bank In The Business Of Banking, Governed By The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 As Well As The Maharashtra State Co­Operative Societies Act, 1960, Claimed ‘Investment Loss Adjusted From Idr’ In The Sum Of Rs.80.991 Lacs In The Computation Of Its Business Income For The Year (Pb Pgs. 24­26). It Is This Claim

For Appellant: Shri Amar GahlotFor Respondent: Shri B. Satyanarayana Raja
Section 143(3)

…ch acquired that is decisive. It is, thus, essentially a matter of fact, to be determined by the AO, even as clarified by the Board per its Circular No. 665 dated 5.10.1993 (pgs. 79­ 80 of CLC), issued following the decision in Vijaya Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC), explaining it. The assessee in the present case contends to hold the AFS securities, to which category the securities transferred fall, as stock­in­trade, marking them to market on each valuation date, in terms of the RBI Master Circular (supra), also placing reliance on CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26/11/2008 (para viii), the relevan…