United Commercial Bank v. CIT

240 ITR 355Supreme Court of India1999#245 most cited

What is United Commercial Bank v. CIT authority for?

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

314

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

United Commercial Bank v. CIT · Section 145 · Section 37(1) · mercantile system of accounting · accrual basis deduction · unascertained liability · provision for expenses · deferred quantification · disputed liability · business deductions

Also reported as

156 CTR 380

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 145Section 36(1)(viii)Section 10(34)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 145(1)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)interest on securitiesmercantile system of accountingsection 10(34)profits and gains of business or professionsection 145section 36(1)disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing United Commercial Bank v. CIT

M/S.. Synthes Medical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6006/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

…te Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 & ITA No. 5807/Del/2013 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to cla…

M/S.. Synthes Medical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6005/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

…te Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 & ITA No. 5807/Del/2013 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to cla…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Synthes Medical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5807/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

…te Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 & ITA No. 5807/Del/2013 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to cla…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Surya Gems, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-16(2)(4), M/S Surya Gems, बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Flat No.4, 02Nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Bhaveshwar Sgar Patel Vs. Mumbai-400007 Compound 20 Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-400020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfs6513Q याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

…ain or loss on revaluation of the outstanding contracts was booked in the profit and loss account as per the mandatory requirements of RBI guidelines. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v CIT,240 ITR 355 and also on following decisions:- 1. Bank of Tokyo v IAC, 13 ITD 32 2. State Bank of Mysore v CIT, 114 ITR 704 (Kerala) 3. CIT v. Canara Bank, 63 ITR 328 (sc) 4. ONGC v DCIT, 83 ITD 151 (Delhi) Ld CIT (A) allowed the assessee‘s appeal, inter alia, observing that the assessee was offering profits resulting from such revaluation as and when they…

M/S Kalyani Barter (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-2(3), Kolkata

In the result the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 681/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No.681 & 824/Kol/2015-M/s. Kalyani Barter (P)Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Hon’ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.681/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 V/s. I.T.O., Ward-2(3) M/s.Kalyani Barter (P)Ltd.,2nd Floor, Room P-7, Chowringhee No.5, 2, Ganesh Chandra Square, Avenue, Kolkata-700013. Kolkata-700069. PAN : AACCK 7579 D .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent I.T.A. No.824/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 V/s. M/s.Kalyani Barter I.T.O., Ward-2(3) (P)Ltd.,2nd Floor, P-7, Chowring…

Susanta Biswas, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1338/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri H.S Bhattacharjee,AR for the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…n [1969] 71 ITR 291 (SC) and ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74 (SC) for the proposition that the same income cannot be taxed twice. 7. Further, the Assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank of vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 for the that real income theory cannot be ignored by holding that the Balance Sheet to be maintained in a particular form. 8. For the proposition that taxability has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of law and not on the basis of the entries which the assessee may choose to make in his accounts and placed on reliance in the case o…

ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan vs. Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Bhiwandi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7224/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, M/S Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ward-1(3), Ltd. बनाम/ 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, H. No.27, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Opp. Bank Of India, Kalyan Bhiwani, Maharashtra-421302 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaan0638A

…k Ltd. page-3 of the impugned order. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer held that the impugned amount is a capital expenditure. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix along with various case laws like Uco Bank vs CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC), CIT vs Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 (Bom.), CIT vs City Union Bank Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 144 (Mad.) and CIT vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. 273 ITR 510 (Mad.), etc. were considered and following the decision in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 held that the amount written off by the assessee as ‘amortization of premium on governmen…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. JCIT, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2035/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखासद"यएवं"ीजी. पवनकुमार, "या"यकसद"यकेसम# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803 & 1804/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. Circle - I, 149, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. [PAN: AAACC 1287E] अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08 &2008-09 M/s. City Unio…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. JCIT, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2034/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखासद"यएवं"ीजी. पवनकुमार, "या"यकसद"यकेसम# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803 & 1804/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. Circle - I, 149, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. [PAN: AAACC 1287E] अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08 &2008-09 M/s. City Unio…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1804/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखासद"यएवं"ीजी. पवनकुमार, "या"यकसद"यकेसम# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803 & 1804/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. Circle - I, 149, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. [PAN: AAACC 1287E] अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08 &2008-09 M/s. City Unio…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1803/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखासद"यएवं"ीजी. पवनकुमार, "या"यकसद"यकेसम# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803 & 1804/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. Circle - I, 149, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. [PAN: AAACC 1287E] अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08 &2008-09 M/s. City Unio…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1802/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखासद"यएवं"ीजी. पवनकुमार, "या"यकसद"यकेसम# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803 & 1804/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. Circle - I, 149, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. [PAN: AAACC 1287E] अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08 &2008-09 M/s. City Unio…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1801/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखासद"यएवं"ीजी. पवनकुमार, "या"यकसद"यकेसम# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803 & 1804/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. Circle - I, 149, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. [PAN: AAACC 1287E] अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08 &2008-09 M/s. City Unio…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1671/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखासद"यएवं"ीजी. पवनकुमार, "या"यकसद"यकेसम# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803 & 1804/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. Circle - I, 149, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. [PAN: AAACC 1287E] अपीलसं./ I.T.A.Nos.2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2007-08 &2008-09 M/s. City Unio…

M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of

ITA 6795/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR
Section 14A

…of Income Tax 356 ITR 549 and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda 262 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “9. In the present case, we find that the facts and issues that are covered by the aforesaid judgment squarely apply to the facts and issues raised in the present Appeal. Not only are we in full agreement with the judgment of this Court in the…

D.S.P. Merill Lynch Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2361/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar

…v/s ITO, ITA no.5324/Mum./2007 and allowed assessee’s claim. As far as provisions for loss on stock–in–trade amounting to ` 3,50,57,000, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank v/s CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC), allowed assessee’s claim. As far as loss on provisions for interest rate swap amounting to ` 33.21 lakh learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in ABN Amro Securities India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.264/Mum./2008, allowed assessee’s claim. 5. Learned Departmental Representative relying upon the…

Deutsche Investment India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1276/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Deutsche Investments Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.161/Mum/2014 (In Ita No.3724/Mum/2013- A.Y:2008-09) & M/S. Deutsche Investments Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E .. Cross Objector/Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shri Sivaji Gode, Sr. Dr .. Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar .. Date Of Hearing 07-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 07- 11- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)

…ITR 355 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under:- “We do not find any merit in this argument. In the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC), the assessee-bank had submitted a return for the assessment year 1982-83 contending that there was a notional loss of Rs. 7.45 crores on account of closing stock of securities valued at market price which fell below the cost. The Income-tax Officer accepted the said loss vide assessment order dated March 19, 1985. However, the Commissioner…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Investment India Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3724/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Deutsche Investments Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.161/Mum/2014 (In Ita No.3724/Mum/2013- A.Y:2008-09) & M/S. Deutsche Investments Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India Pvt. Ltd.,Nicholas Tax, Circle- 6(2), Room No.563, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Churchgate, Mumbai 400 021 Kadammarg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan: Aaccd 1705 E .. Cross Objector/Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shri Sivaji Gode, Sr. Dr .. Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar .. Date Of Hearing 07-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 07- 11- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)

…ITR 355 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under:- “We do not find any merit in this argument. In the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC), the assessee-bank had submitted a return for the assessment year 1982-83 contending that there was a notional loss of Rs. 7.45 crores on account of closing stock of securities valued at market price which fell below the cost. The Income-tax Officer accepted the said loss vide assessment order dated March 19, 1985. However, the Commissioner…

The Hindustan Co Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1501/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1501/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009­10) The Hindustan Co­Operative Bank Ltd. Jt. Cit­13(3), बनाम/ 4­A, Devi Galli, Baburao Bobde Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Lokhand Bazar, Mumbai­400 009 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabat 4355 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Amar Gahlot, Shri S. Sriram ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raja सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 01.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)­24, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.11.2013, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009­ 10 Vide Order Dated 21.12.2011. 2. The Assessee, A Co­Operative Bank In The Business Of Banking, Governed By The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 As Well As The Maharashtra State Co­Operative Societies Act, 1960, Claimed ‘Investment Loss Adjusted From Idr’ In The Sum Of Rs.80.991 Lacs In The Computation Of Its Business Income For The Year (Pb Pgs. 24­26). It Is This Claim

For Appellant: Shri Amar GahlotFor Respondent: Shri B. Satyanarayana Raja
Section 143(3)

…ollowing the standard, accepted principles of commercial accounting, to arrive at the true and correct profit for the year. Not so doing would lead to a distorted figure of income. In its words, which find reproduction in United Commercial Bank vs. CIT [1990] 240 ITR 355 (SC), relied upon by the assessee: (at pg. 365) "It is a well­recognised principle of commercial accounting to enter in the P&L a/c the value of the stock­in­trade at the beginning and at the end of the accounting year at cost or market price, whichever is the lower." (pg. 51) This is followed by further reproduction (at page 365), dilating on t…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…toCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 47 of 484 regularly followed by the appellant and accepted by the Department. Reliance in this regard is placed on: i. UCO Bank v. CIT: 240 ITR 355 (SC) ii. CIT v. Singaribai: 13 ITR 224 (All.)(FB) iii. Juggilal v. CIT: 101 ITR 40 (All.) iv. CIT v. TISCO: 106 IR 363 (Bom.) v. CIT v. Sankarapandia: 130 ITR 541 (Mad.) vi. Balapur Mandali v. CIT: 135 ITR 91 (Guj.) He further stated that In any case, considering that the appellant is a high tax paying company, subjected to uniform rate of tax,…