Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd. v. JCIT (86 ITD 602)

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sunit Singh, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 38

…ld. DR supporting the penalty order as well as the first appellate order on this point submitted that the assessee for making claim towards provisions for NPA relied and book a base on the ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd [2003] 86 ITD 602 [Chennai] whereas the decision of the Southern Technologies Ltd Vs. JCIT [supra] was rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court on23.1.2002 which was reported in 296 ITR 514 [Mad]. The ld. DR vehemently contended that out of these two decisions, the assessee made a claim by relying on the decision of the ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Overseas S…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 14ASection 43D

…the AO and held that the entire amount cannot be allowed as deduction merely on the basis of RBI guidelines. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the decision of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in case of Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd. Vs JCIT 86 ITD 602. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has relied upon the order of the authorities below and submitted that the provisions of statute will prevail over the RBI guidelines for the purpose of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). 33. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute regarding the claim allowed by the…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…the AO and held that the entire amount cannot be allowed as deduction merely on the basis of RBI guidelines. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the decision of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in case of Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd. Vs JCIT 86 ITD 602. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has relied upon the order of the authorities below and submitted that the provisions of statute will prevail over the RBI guidelines for the purpose of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). 33. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute regarding the claim allowed by t…

ACIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…the AO and held that the entire amount cannot be allowed as deduction merely on the basis of RBI guidelines. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the decision of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in case of Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd. Vs JCIT 86 ITD 602. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has relied upon the order of the authorities below and submitted that the provisions of statute will prevail over the RBI guidelines for the purpose of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). 33. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute regarding the claim allowed by t…

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)

…the AO and held that the entire amount cannot be allowed as deduction merely on the basis of RBI guidelines. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the decision of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in case of Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd. Vs JCIT 86 ITD 602. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has relied upon the order of the authorities below and submitted that the provisions of statute will prevail over the RBI guidelines for the purpose of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). 33. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute regarding the claim allowed by th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Guardian Limited

In the result, no fault can

ITA/669/2008HC Delhi23 Jan 2009

Bench: The Tribunal The Revenue As Well As The Assessee, Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of 2009:Dhc:240-Db

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Jha

Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)

…re, the Tribunal also accepted the plea of the assessee that it was entitled to claim deduction under Section 43B(d) of the Act and based its decision on the judgment delivered by its Chennai Bench in the case Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd vs JCIT; (2003) 86 ITD 602. 2009:DHC:240-DB 17. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has returned a finding that the lump sum pre-payment premium of Rs 8 crores represented the present value of the differential rate of interest that would have been payable by the assessee if no re-structuring of loan had taken place, then in terms of Section 36(1)(ii) read with…

Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd. v. JCIT