State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. DCIT

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…um/2004) (Mumbai Special Bench) 48 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India (iii) CIT v. Federal Bank Ltd. (301 ITR 188) (Ker) (iv) Housing Development and Finance Corporation (98 ITD 319) (Mum); (v) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (74 ITD 203) (Jaipur); (vi) Punjab & Sind Bank (239 ITR 343) (Del); (vii) Canara Bank (195 ITR 66) (Kar). (viii) The CIT(A) has also upheld in earlier years, that interest on securities is to be taxed on due basis. 8.8 Accordingly, the appellant's income stands enhanced by amount of Rs. 421.65.56,397/- following the charging of interest on due basis on sp…

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…um/2004) (Mumbai Special Bench) 48 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India (iii) CIT v. Federal Bank Ltd. (301 ITR 188) (Ker) (iv) Housing Development and Finance Corporation (98 ITD 319) (Mum); (v) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (74 ITD 203) (Jaipur); (vi) Punjab & Sind Bank (239 ITR 343) (Del); (vii) Canara Bank (195 ITR 66) (Kar). (viii) The CIT(A) has also upheld in earlier years, that interest on securities is to be taxed on due basis. 8.8 Accordingly, the appellant's income stands enhanced by amount of Rs. 421.65.56,397/- following the charging of interest on due basis on sp…

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

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: -

…es not accrue on day to day basis and the assessee does not have any right to claim interest till it becomes due. The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of Hon‟ble ITAT, JaipurBench in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur vs. DCIT 74 ITD 203 wherein it has been held that interest on securities is assessable to tax on due basis; that the omission of section 18 to 21 does not come in the way of the claim of the assessee as these sections are not charging sections; that charging section is section 5; that the income has to be computed as per the provisions of section 5 and sections 21 to…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ed 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement 22 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ITA Nos.469, 469,…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ed 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement 22 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ITA Nos.469, 469,…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ed 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement 22 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ITA Nos.469, 469,…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ed 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement 22 M/s Sharekhan Ltd. ITA Nos.469, 469,…

M.K. Creations, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2010-11 M/S M.K. Creations, Income Tax Officer C/O- Shankarlal Jain & Ward-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Associates, Earnest House, Vs. 12, Engineer Building, Nariman Point, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaafm2004J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shankarlal Jain Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 06/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/s M.K. Creations, Income Tax Officer C/o- Shankarlal Jain & Ward-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Associates, Earnest House, Vs. 12, Engineer Building, Nariman Point, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PA No.:-AAAFM2004J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Shankarlal Jain Shri Suman Kumar-…

DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Control Print (India) Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit(Osd), Range-8(1), M/S Control Print (India) Ltd. Room No.260A, 2Nd Floor, C-106, Hind Saurashtra बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, M.V. Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Marol Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacc5378C

…also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; 5 M/s Control Print (India) Ltd. iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 2.3. Even otherwise, in view of the amendment in the taxation laws with effect from 01st April, 1989, the requirement of demonstrating that the debts has beco…