Commissioner of Income Tax v. Central Bank of India

232 Taxmann 396High Court2015#4767 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Central Bank of India authority for?

Expenditure incurred by a company to maintain its status as a company, rather than for earning specific income like dividends, cannot be allocated for disallowance under Section 14A.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Central Bank of India · Section 14A · dividend income · allocation of expenditure · maintain status of company · disallowance · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure

Also reported as

254 ITR 203

Sections most often in play

Section 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 143(4)(b)Section 2(7A)Section 234BSection 253

Issues it is cited on

section 254(2)miscellaneous applicationsection 253chief commissionerregular assessmentcapital expendituresection 254commissioner (appeals)cross objectionsalarycondonation of delayappeal before the tribunal

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Central Bank of India

M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2736/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 253Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 35ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80MSection 86

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2736/Mum/2007 for Assessment Year: 2003-04 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Add. CIT, Range-1(1), Ltd. 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai -400020 Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACH1118B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.649/Mum/2009 for Assessment Year: 2004-05 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Add. CIT, Range-1(1), Ltd. 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai -400020 PAN: AAACH1118B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.1186/Mum/2009 for Asses…

Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 7490/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. Addl Cit(A) 5(3) Room No. 525B, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 21A Mittal Tower, Vs. Nirman Point, Mumbai-400021 Bhavan, Mk Road, New Marine Pan No.Aaacr1772R Lines, Mumbai-20 Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Ronak Doshi, Ar Revenue By .. Sivaji Ghote, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 10-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 10-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…and safe custody charges has not been disallowed as such expenses are not directly y relatable to earning of dividend; they may be so relatable to acquisition of shares but not to dividend being earned For this view reliance is placed on CIT Vs GIC of lndia (254 ITR 203) (Bom) Which has held that expenses incurred on account of salary paid to staff, stamp duty, transfer fees, custody are not directly relatable to earning of dividend 7. 6. We have thereafter identified the expenses that are indirect/ y incurred in relation to such investments by way of cost on the personnel of RBCL who are engaged in the day-to-d…

M/S. State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT. Spl. RG. - 27, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 1997-1998

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3823-24/Mum/2005 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S.1997-98, 1998-99 वष" State Bank Of India Addl. Cit- Range-2(2) Accounts & Compliance Deptt. Mumbai. Corporate Centre,Madam Cama Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aaacs 8577 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav Assessee By:Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :02.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench: Challenging The Orders Dated 24.3.2005 & 28.3.2005 The Asssessee Has Filed The Appeals For Above Mentioned Two Ay.S Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal. It Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Of Appeal For The Ay 1997-98.Assessee,A Public Sector Bank Is Engaged In The Business Of Banking.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Income Etc., For Both The Years Can Be Summarised As Under : A.Y. Roi Filed Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders On Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Of Cit(A) 1997-98 28.11.1997 2086,56,04,580/- 27.03.2000 2433,18,77,427/- 24.3.2005 1998-99 30.11.1998 2816,41,01,920/- 14.02.2001 3558,87,03,620/- 28.3.2005

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav
Section 254(1)

…3823-24/M/05-SBI आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे",लेखा सद" एवं अिमत शु" "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3823-24/Mum/2005 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /AY.s.1997-98, 1998-99 वष" State Bank of India Addl. CIT- Range-2(2) Accounts & Compliance Deptt. Mumbai. Corporate Centre,Madam Cama Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021. PAN:AAACS 8577 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav Assessee by:Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :…

M/S. Unilever Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT Cir - 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 1936/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004
For Appellant: Sh. Percy PardiwadlaFor Respondent: S/Sh. N. K. Chand & N. Sathya Murthy
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 32Section 37

…tment was made as early as 1995-96, that it had earned dividend from two companies only. He referred to the page no. 2, 3 and 200 of the paper book. He relied on the cases of Zindal Iron and Steel Company(25SOT27) and General Insurance of Corporation of India(254 ITR 203).The DR supported the order of FAA. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the AO had made an ad hoc disallowance of Rs.2.50lakhs u/s. 80M of the Act, that the assessee had made investments in AY 1995-96,that except for two earlier years the AO had not made any disallowance with regard to the estim…

Shree Satyanarayan Investments Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6888/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia ,Am

For Appellant: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 234DSection 244ASection 80Section 80M

…3 Satyanarayan Investments Co. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2. Regarding the ground number 1&2, it was submitted by the ld. AR assessee that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred in the case of CIT vs. Central Bank of India as 264 ITR 522, only actual expenses can be reduced from the income before allowing deduction under section 80M of the IT Act and in the present case, no actual expenditure has been reduced by the AO and he has reduced the proportionate expenditure. At this juncture, it was pointed out to him that this is the second round of appeal and as per earlier terminal o…