Kerala Road Transport Corporation v. ITO

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

…ssessee there was no such statutory requirement and assessee\nhas issued debt instruments without any compulsory requirement of contribution. The ld.\nCounsel has also referred decision of ITAT, Cochin in the case of Kerala Road Transport\nCorporation Vs. ITO 34 TTJ 101.\n10. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The A.O has disallowed the\nclaim of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) by treating the perpetual bond as equity in nature. In\nsupport of his finding the A.O has placed reliance on the observation of the Pr. CIT made in\nthe order u/s 263 in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. These…

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

…ssessee there was no such statutory requirement and assessee\nhas issued debt instruments without any compulsory requirement of contribution. The ld.\nCounsel has also referred decision of ITAT, Cochin in the case of Kerala Road Transport\nCorporation Vs. ITO 34 TTJ 101.\n\n10.\nHeard both the sides and perused the material on record. The A.O has disallowed the\nclaim of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) by treating the perpetual bond as equity in nature. In\nsupport of his finding the A.O has placed reliance on the observation of the Pr. CIT made in\nthe order u/s 263 in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. The…

ACIT CIR 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaacb 1534 F V/S Acit, 2(1)(1), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1), Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400020. V/S Bank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra ……………. Respondent Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacb 1534 F

…ee. In that case the revenue had not discussed about the terms on which perpetual bond were issued. Therefore, the issue was remained back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We have also perused the decision of Kerala Road Transport Corporation Vs. ITO 34 TTJ 101 Cochin, ITAT, wherein held that payment of interest was not made to the corporation but it was the payment made to the third parties. In the light of the above facts and circumstances merely that RBI recognizes to treat the said debt instruments as additional Tier/Capital would not change the nature of Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments which w…

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

…In that case the revenue had not discussed about the terms on\nwhich perpetual bond were issued. Therefore, the issue was remained back\nto the Id. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We have also perused the decision of\nKerala Road Transport Corporation Vs. ITO 34 TTJ 101 Cochin, ITAT, wherein\nheld that payment of interest was not made to the corporation but it was the\npayment made to the third parties. In the light of the above facts and\ncircumstances merely that RBI recognizes to treat the said debt instruments\nas additional Tier/Capital would not change the nature of Innovative\nPerpetual Debt Instruments wh…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI vs. IDBI BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

…ee. In that case the revenue had not discussed about the terms on which perpetual bond were issued. Therefore, the issue was remained back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We have also perused the decision of Kerala Road Transport Corporation Vs. ITO 34 TTJ 101 Cochin, ITAT, wherein held that payment of interest was not made to the corporation but it was the payment made to the third parties. In the light of the above facts and circumstances merely that RBI recognizes to treat the said debt instruments as additional Tier/Capital would not change the nature of Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments which w…

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S IDBI BANK LTD , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT- 3(4) v. M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd 29th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (TDS) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 MIDC, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 PAN: AABCI8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. IDBI Bank Ltd v. ACIT/DCIT-LTU 22nd Floor, IDBI Tower 29th floor, Centre No. 1 WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 PAN: AABCI8842G (App…

ICICI BANK LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ld Cit(A). Hence Both The Parties Have Filed These Appeals.

…evenue had not discussed about the terms on which perpetual bond were issued. Therefore, the issue was remained back to ICICI Bank Limited 8 the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We have also perused the decision of Kerala Road Transport Corporation Vs. ITO 34 TTJ 101 Cochin, ITAT, wherein held that payment of interest was not made to the corporation but it was the payment made to the third parties. In the light of the above facts and circumstances merely that RBI recognizes to treat the said debt instruments as additional Tier/Capital would not change the nature of Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments which w…

ACIT-2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ICICI BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

…. Vs. The ACIT-2(3)(2) such statutory requirement and assessee has issued debt instruments without any compulsory requirement of contribution. The ld. Counsel has also referred decision of ITAT, Cochin in the case of Kerala Road Transport Corporation Vs. ITO 34 TTJ 101. 10. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The A.O has disallowed the claim of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) by treating the perpetual bond as equity in nature. In support of his finding the A.O has placed reliance on the observation of the Pr. CIT made in the order u/s 263 in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. These obse…

ICICI BANK LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalicici Bank Limited Vs. The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Bandra Kurla Complex Floor, Room No. 552/556 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Vs. Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Icici Bank Towers Floor, Room No. 552 Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 020 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaci1195H Respondent .. Appellant

…. Vs. The ACIT-2(3)(2) such statutory requirement and assessee has issued debt instruments without any compulsory requirement of contribution. The ld. Counsel has also referred decision of ITAT, Cochin in the case of Kerala Road Transport Corporation Vs. ITO 34 TTJ 101. 10. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The A.O has disallowed the claim of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) by treating the perpetual bond as equity in nature. In support of his finding the A.O has placed reliance on the observation of the Pr. CIT made in the order u/s 263 in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. These obse…