DCIT v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (Cochin)

76 TTJ 439Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#16163 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 43dsection 42section 40(a)(ii)section 43csection 65section 45mercantile system of accountingsection 40(a)reasoned ordersection 145section 119section 43b

Judgments citing DCIT v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (Cochin)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 802/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

…ase\nof Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. rendered by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal. The\nreply of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Ld. AO. Placing reliance\non the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of DCIT Vs.\nDhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. (2002) 76 TTJ 439 (Coah), the Ld. AO rejected the above\nsubmission of the assessee. The Ld. AO further observed that the profit and\nloss account of the assessee clearly shows that the penal interest has been\ncharged upon the assessee bank in the previous years and the same penalty\nhas also been levied upon the assessee by RBI in AY 2012-13 and other\n assessmen…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 801/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

…ase\nof Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. rendered by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal. The\nreply of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Ld. AO. Placing reliance\non the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of DCIT Vs.\nDhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. (2002) 76 TTJ 439 (Coah), the Ld. AO rejected the above\nsubmission of the assessee. The Ld. AO further observed that the profit and\nloss account of the assessee clearly shows that the penal interest has been\ncharged upon the assessee bank in the previous years and the same penalty\nhas also been levied upon the assessee by RBI in AY 2012-13 and other\n assessmen…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 800/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

…ase\nof Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. rendered by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal. The\nreply of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Ld. AO. Placing reliance\non the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of DCIT Vs.\nDhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. (2002) 76 TTJ 439 (Coah), the Ld. AO rejected the above\nsubmission of the assessee. The Ld. AO further observed that the profit and\nloss account of the assessee clearly shows that the penal interest has been\ncharged upon the assessee bank in the previous years and the same penalty\nhas also been levied upon the assessee by RBI in AY 2012-13 and other\n assessmen…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3377/MUM/2006[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 145Section 195Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40Section 90(2)

…tion 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 constitute penalty so as to disallow the interest claim. The Tribunal following the decision in the case of DCIT V/s. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (Cochin) reported in 76 TTJ 439 held that the interest paid to the RBI was not penalty and accordingly the interest expenditure is allowable. SLP filed by the revenue against similar decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed by the Apex Court as reported in [2005] 277 I.T.R. (ST) 3. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in t…

ADIT (IT)-3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BARCLAYS BANK PLC., MUMBAI

ITA 2050/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.2050/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 The Adit(It)-3(2), Barclays Bank Plc, बनाम/ Scindia House, 21/23, Maker Chambers-Vi, Vs. N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.1728/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 Barclays Bank Plc, The Adit(It)-3(2), बनाम/ 21/23, Maker Chambers- Scindia House, Vs. Vi, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4654/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Adit(It)-3(2), Barclays Bank Plc, बनाम/ Scindia House, 21/23, Maker Chambers-Vi, Vs. N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4668/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 Barclays Bank Plc, The Adit(It)-3(2), बनाम/ 21/23, Maker Chambers- Scindia House, Vs. Vi, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4876G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Deshpande
Section 115ASection 115A(1)Section 115A(1)(B)Section 28Section 57

…tion 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 constitute penalty so as to disallow the interest claim. The Tribunal following the decision in the case of DCIT V/s. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (Cochin) reported in 76 TTJ 439 held that the interest paid to the RBI was not penalty and accordingly the interest expenditure is allowable. SLP filed by the revenue against similar decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed by the Apex Court as reported in [2005] 277 ITR (ST) 3. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the…

M/S. BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) - 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1728/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.2050/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 The Adit(It)-3(2), Barclays Bank Plc, बनाम/ Scindia House, 21/23, Maker Chambers-Vi, Vs. N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.1728/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 Barclays Bank Plc, The Adit(It)-3(2), बनाम/ 21/23, Maker Chambers- Scindia House, Vs. Vi, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4654/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Adit(It)-3(2), Barclays Bank Plc, बनाम/ Scindia House, 21/23, Maker Chambers-Vi, Vs. N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4668/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 Barclays Bank Plc, The Adit(It)-3(2), बनाम/ 21/23, Maker Chambers- Scindia House, Vs. Vi, N.M. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4876G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Deshpande
Section 115ASection 115A(1)Section 115A(1)(B)Section 28Section 57

…tion 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 constitute penalty so as to disallow the interest claim. The Tribunal following the decision in the case of DCIT V/s. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (Cochin) reported in 76 TTJ 439 held that the interest paid to the RBI was not penalty and accordingly the interest expenditure is allowable. SLP filed by the revenue against similar decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed by the Apex Court as reported in [2005] 277 ITR (ST) 3. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the…

DCIT v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (Cochin) (76 TTJ 439) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax