PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala

391 ITR 218High Court2017#392 most cited

What is PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala authority for?

Income from shares and securities held by banks as stock-in-trade constitutes business income, hence Section 14A disallowance is not attracted. Further, any disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year.

228

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala · Section 14A disallowance · shares and securities held by bank · stock-in-trade · income from securities business income · disallowance under Section 14A limit · disallowance cannot exceed exempt income · Rule 8D application disallowance · Supreme Court dismissal of SLP · 391 ITR 218

Also reported as

78 Taxmann.com 3259 Taxmann 315

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115JBSection 8DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 90Section 91
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 43dsection 36(2)(v)section 36(1)(viii)section 10(34)section 36(1)(viia)interest on securitiessection 36(2)prohibited by lawdisallowance under section 14asection 129section 115jb(2)section 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Ltu), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(viia)

…sum of Rs.7,45,51,455 whereas the claim for deduction actually made u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act was a sum of Rs.200,03,24,219/-. The AO was of the view that as laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. CIT 272 ITR 53 (P & H), claim for deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act can be granted only to the extent provision for bad and doubtful debts is debited in the profit and loss account. The deduction to be allowed cannot be greater than the amount debited to the profit and loss account as provision. The AO rejected the plea of the Assessee that 10% of Average Adv…

Niraj Kumar Associates Pvt.Limited, Pashan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2246/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 14A

…t income of relevant year); (ii) Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, [2018] 95 taxmann.com 41 (Karnataka); (iii) PCIT vs. Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd., 114 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay); and, (iv) PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 393 ITR 476. 9. However, in the present case, the amount of exempt income is not borne out of the record. Therefore, we set-aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to restrict the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2227/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…are held by the assessee, though the intention of the assessee is to trade in shares to earn profits. The Hon’ble 7 Union Bank of India Supreme Court approved the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 391 ITR 218 albiet for a different reason that provisions of section 14A would not get attracted where the shares are held in ‘stock-in-trade’, Following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal in the case of Asstt.CIT vs. UCO Bank (supra), Punjab National Bank vs. ACI (supra) and IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT(supra) h…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2229/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…are held by the assessee, though the intention of the assessee is to trade in shares to earn profits. The Hon’ble 7 Union Bank of India Supreme Court approved the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 391 ITR 218 albiet for a different reason that provisions of section 14A would not get attracted where the shares are held in ‘stock-in-trade’, Following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal in the case of Asstt.CIT vs. UCO Bank (supra), Punjab National Bank vs. ACI (supra) and IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT(supra) h…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1805/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…are held by the assessee, though the intention of the assessee is to trade in shares to earn profits. The Hon’ble 7 Union Bank of India Supreme Court approved the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 391 ITR 218 albiet for a different reason that provisions of section 14A would not get attracted where the shares are held in ‘stock-in-trade’, Following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal in the case of Asstt.CIT vs. UCO Bank (supra), Punjab National Bank vs. ACI (supra) and IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT(supra) h…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1804/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…are held by the assessee, though the intention of the assessee is to trade in shares to earn profits. The Hon’ble 7 Union Bank of India Supreme Court approved the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 391 ITR 218 albiet for a different reason that provisions of section 14A would not get attracted where the shares are held in ‘stock-in-trade’, Following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal in the case of Asstt.CIT vs. UCO Bank (supra), Punjab National Bank vs. ACI (supra) and IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT(supra) h…

Meditab Speciakities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 950/मुं/2019 (िन. व. 2013-14) Meditab Specialities Pvt. Ltd. C-1, Pooja Apartments, Hariyali Estate, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400083. Pan: Aaacm6124A ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dcit 2(2)(2), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.M. Marg, Mumbai 400020 ..... .ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal (DR)
Section 14A

…td. appellant’s own case for AY 2012-13, while computing the disallowance under section 14A of the Act” 5. We find merit in ground 1(d) of the appeal by assessee. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Principle CIT vs. State Bank of Patila (393 ITR 476) has held that disallowance under section 14A should be restricted to the exempt income earned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Principle CIT vs. State Bank of Patila reported as 99 taxmann.com 286 has dismissed the SLP of Revenue in the said case. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Princ…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Hubli vs. M/S Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad

In the result the disallowance made of Rs

ITA 2054/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…oubtful debts account. The following were the relevant observations of the Tribunal:- “7. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned DR submitted that as laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. CIT 272 ITR 53 (P & H), claim for deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act cannot be greater than the amount debited to the profit and loss account as provision. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. DCIT (2014) 150 ITD 0103 (Bangalore), wherein the Hon’ble ITAT Bangalore Bench preferred to follow the view take…

Sri Alok Agrawal, Sundergarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 160/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.319/CTK/2018 & ITA No.160/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, OCL Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh PAN No. : AFKPA 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.S.Poddar, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronou…

Sri Alok Agarwal, Sundergarh vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 319/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.319/CTK/2018 & ITA No.160/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, OCL Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh PAN No. : AFKPA 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.S.Poddar, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronou…

ACIT, Ltu - 2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shankar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 211Section 40

…find merit in the Ld. AR's submissions that in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also extensively dealt with the Revenue's appeal in the case of State Bank of Patiala arising from the decision of the Hori'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in 391 ITR 218. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had taken note of the fact that the banking companies in the course of carrying on their banking business were required to hold shares & securities and the expenses were incurred in connection with such banking business and the income therefrom was assessable under the head "Profits &…

JCIT, (OSD), Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Isg Traders Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1610/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…1 IGS Traders Ltd., AY- 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी पी. एम.जगताप, उपा"य" एवं "ी ए.ट". वक","या"यक सद"य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Joint Commissioner of Income- Vs. M/s. ISG Traders Ltd., tax(OSD),Circle-6(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AABCI1355C) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 26.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2020 For the Appellant Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR For the Respondent Shri G. A. Seshan, AR ORDER Per A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal pref…

Patel Corporation LLP., Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3417/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Patel Corporation Office Of Ito – 31(2)(5), Llp, C-13, 1St Floor Sv Road, R. No.106, Vs. Patel Estate, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Jogeshwari (W), Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai - 21 Pan: Aamfp3196J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito – 31(2)(5), M/S. Patel Corporation C-13, 1St Floor Llp, R. No.106, Sv Road, Vs. Bkc Bandra (East), Patel Estate, Mumbai - 400051 Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400 102 Pan: Aamfp3196J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…g the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694, CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 90 CCH (0081) Delhi – HC and also the decision of P&H HC in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of India, Patiala 393 ITR 476 P&H and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 104-109 of 2015 dated 12/02/2018. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has correctly passed the order restricting the amount of disallowance under section 14A to the amoun…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND 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…

Shriram Industrial Finance (Firm), Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2007/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2007/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mrs. Vijaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: 24.02.2020
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी एम बाला गणेश, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2007/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Shriram Industrial Finance (Firm), The Dy. Commissioner of Mookambika Complex, Vs. Income Tax, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Chennai – 600 004. Chennai. [PAN: AACFS 1682A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Srinivasan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellan…

M/S. Rajdeep Automation Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2375/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Miss Jyoti SinghFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…,557/- for A.Y. 2013-14. It is thus seen that the disallowance u/s 14A worked out by AO is much more than the exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 Taxmann.com 285 has held that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has to be restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not at a higher figure. We find that against the aforesaid order of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Revenue filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court (2018) 99 Taxm…

M/S. Rajdeep Automation Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2374/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Miss Jyoti SinghFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…,557/- for A.Y. 2013-14. It is thus seen that the disallowance u/s 14A worked out by AO is much more than the exempt income earned by the assessee. We find that the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. State Bank of Patiala (2018) 99 Taxmann.com 285 has held that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has to be restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not at a higher figure. We find that against the aforesaid order of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Revenue filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court (2018) 99 Taxm…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एविं श्री जी. मिंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank of India The Dy. Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AAACS8577K आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 4563/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessmen…

Jt. CIT -(OSD)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3673/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Central Bank Of India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax – 2(1) Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Jt. Cit (Osd)-2(1)(2) Vs. Central Bank Of India R.No.561, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Chandermukhi Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By Shri V. Sreekar Date Of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3739/Mum/2018 & 3673/Mum/2018 For A.Y.2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Dcit2(1) It- 44/Tr.4/16-17 Dated 30/01/2018 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 25/03/2014 By The Ld. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…e 8D(2) of the rules. Moreover, on merits, in the facts of that case, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the very same decision had categorically upheld the findings recorded by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala reported in 78 Taxmann.com 3(P & H) with regard to non-applicability of provisions of Section 14A of the Act in respect of investments held as stock in trade in respect of banks. For this purpose, the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case referred to supra had placed reliance on the CBDT Circular No.18/2015 dated 02/11/2015 which decision had been accepted b…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hubli vs. M/S. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

ITA 1391/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri Pranav Krishna, & Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1391 & 1392/Bang/2016 Assessment year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jt. Commissioner Vs. M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, of Income-tax, Head Office, H.O Building Circle-2(1), Belgaum Road, Hubli. Dharwad. PAN: AAAAK 6324Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO Nos.107 & 108/Bang/2017 [in ITA No. 1391 & 1392/Bang/2016] Assessment year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Head Office, H.O Building of Income-tax, Belgaum Road, Circle-2(1), Dh…