CIT vs. Karnataka Bank, 226 Taxman 197. 2. CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd.

249 ITR 491High Court2001#10409 most cited

What is CIT vs. Karnataka Bank, 226 Taxman 197. 2. CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. authority for?

Interest income is taxable in the year of receipt, not necessarily the year of accrual.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Karnataka Bank · CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd · interest income · accrual · receipt · year of taxability

Judgments citing CIT vs. Karnataka Bank, 226 Taxman 197. 2. CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd.

M/S. Birla Edutech Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(18)Section 3Section 79

…oner of Trade Uttar Pradesh (Appeal 19 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Birla Edutech Ltd. (civil) 5607 of 2007) CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd (1997) 108 ITR 869 (Bom) CIT v. Schlumberger Sea Co. Inc. (2003) 264 ITR 331 (Cal) Bata India Ltd. v. ACIT (2001) 249 ITR 491 (Cal) Thus, we find considerable force in the submission of the Ld. 27. AR that AO erred in invoking Section 154 of the Act to disallow the losses u/s 79 of the Act which in any case can be termed to be mistake apparent on record. From the discussion (supra) it can be seen that not only provisions of Income Tax Act but also Companies Act need to…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad vs. Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…t. The revenue has relied on the statement of Shri Jigar Mandaviya but no opportunity of cross examination was granted to the assessee which is against the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Co. Vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 491 where it was held as under: That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal was really of no consequence for it is the assessment order that counts. That order must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of setting out his case. Therefore, the Tribunal was not ju…

Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 182/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…t. The revenue has relied on the statement of Shri Jigar Mandaviya but no opportunity of cross examination was granted to the assessee which is against the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Co. Vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 491 where it was held as under: That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal was really of no consequence for it is the assessment order that counts. That order must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of setting out his case. Therefore, the Tribunal was not ju…

Partha Chatterjee, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Hooghly

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1015/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 Partha Chatterjee Acit, Circle-1, Hg बनाम C/O S.N.Ghosh & Aaykar Bhawan, G.T. / Associates, Advocates’ V/S. Road, Khadina More,P.O. “Seven Brotherrs’ Lodge” Chinsurah, P.S.Chinsurah, P.O.Buroshibtala, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712101 P.S.Chinsurah, Dist.Hooghly, Pin-712105 [Pan No.Acepc 8818 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Altaf Husain, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed In Case No.360/Cit(A)-6/Kol/2014-15, Involving Proceedings 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File(S) Perused. 2. The Assessee’ Pleadings Raised In The Instant Case Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Cost Of Construction Amounting To ₹27,88,995/- In Exercise Of Their Rectification Jurisdiction Vested U/S. 154 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 154

…AYAN BHALOTIA (1994) 74 TAXMAN 34 (CAL), when a mistake has to be discovered on the interpretation or the construction of the provisions of the Act, it could never be a mistake apparent from the record. Again, in the case of BATA INDIA LTD. -VS- I.A.C. (2001) 249 ITR 491 (CAL), where the alleged mistake pertained to ascertain the correctness and incorrectness of the assessment order, then there would be an occasion for reopening of this assessment order resulting inevitably in a debatable issue on the allowability of a deduction, which was allowed in the previous assessment years, therefore there was neither any…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1316/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…the assessee. Accordingly, the same should be offered to tax only in the year of receipt. He placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. CIT vs. Karnataka Bank, 226 Taxman 197. 2. CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd, 291 ITR 144. 3. CIT vs. Union Overseas Bank, 249 ITR 491. 4. CIT vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, 291 ITR 131. ITA Nos.1129-30/-1315-16/18 :- 20 -: 30. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case by the Jurisdictional High Court in 2014 (8) TMI 604, wherein it was held at para 3 as follows: ‘’3. We find that…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1315/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…the assessee. Accordingly, the same should be offered to tax only in the year of receipt. He placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. CIT vs. Karnataka Bank, 226 Taxman 197. 2. CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd, 291 ITR 144. 3. CIT vs. Union Overseas Bank, 249 ITR 491. 4. CIT vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, 291 ITR 131. ITA Nos.1129-30/-1315-16/18 :- 20 -: 30. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case by the Jurisdictional High Court in 2014 (8) TMI 604, wherein it was held at para 3 as follows: ‘’3. We find that…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1130/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…the assessee. Accordingly, the same should be offered to tax only in the year of receipt. He placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. CIT vs. Karnataka Bank, 226 Taxman 197. 2. CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd, 291 ITR 144. 3. CIT vs. Union Overseas Bank, 249 ITR 491. 4. CIT vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, 291 ITR 131. ITA Nos.1129-30/-1315-16/18 :- 20 -: 30. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case by the Jurisdictional High Court in 2014 (8) TMI 604, wherein it was held at para 3 as follows: ‘’3. We find that…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1129/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…the assessee. Accordingly, the same should be offered to tax only in the year of receipt. He placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. CIT vs. Karnataka Bank, 226 Taxman 197. 2. CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd, 291 ITR 144. 3. CIT vs. Union Overseas Bank, 249 ITR 491. 4. CIT vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, 291 ITR 131. ITA Nos.1129-30/-1315-16/18 :- 20 -: 30. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case by the Jurisdictional High Court in 2014 (8) TMI 604, wherein it was held at para 3 as follows: ‘’3. We find that…

DCIT, Circle -2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Bata India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 365/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna,CIT
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(6)(va)Section 43B

…of Rs.66,96,560/- was disallowed. 13. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO following the decision of the Tribunal identical issue in assessee’s own case decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bata India Ltd. 249 ITR 491 (Cal) which w followed by ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2005-06 and 2006-07 in ITA Nos 1826 1828/Kol/2012 dated 23.05.2013. Following the aforesaid decision the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO. 14. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the Revenue has preferred ground no.1 before the Tribunal. 15. We have heard the rival submissions. We…

M/S. Bata India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 327/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna,CIT
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(6)(va)Section 43B

…of Rs.66,96,560/- was disallowed. 13. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO following the decision of the Tribunal identical issue in assessee’s own case decided by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bata India Ltd. 249 ITR 491 (Cal) which w followed by ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2005-06 and 2006-07 in ITA Nos 1826 1828/Kol/2012 dated 23.05.2013. Following the aforesaid decision the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO. 14. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the Revenue has preferred ground no.1 before the Tribunal. 15. We have heard the rival submissions. We…

CIT vs. Karnataka Bank, 226 Taxman 197. 2. CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. (249 ITR 491) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax