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

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-07 vs. M/S Oriental Bank of Commerce

ITA/306/2016HC Delhi11 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 36(1)(vii)

…a [2003] 262 ITR 334 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 377 (Bom). The ITAT has noted that the above decisions referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) and Southern Technologies Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC). 4. However, Mr. Shivpuri, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, seeks to place reliance on another decision of High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income Tax v. ING VYSYA Bank Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 532 (Kar.) where,…

ACIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Krishna Grameena Bank, Gulbarga

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 592/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR)For Respondent: Shri G. Venkatesh, Advocate
Section 43B

…r method of accounting system, there is no justification in interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue of amortization of premium on government securities. United Commercial Bank v. CIT (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 380; (1999) 240 ITR 355 (SC) and South Indian Bank Ltd., (ITA No.126/Coch/2004,dated.___ Sept, 2005 followed." (ii) The Khanapur Co-op Bank Ltd v. ITO – ITA No.141/PNJ/2011,dated.8.9.2011: The Hon'ble Bench of Panaji Tribunal had recorded its findings that "6. Likewise, the premium amortized at Rs.1,78,098/- is claimed to be in respect of securities held under the cate…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…ve Bank of India. In the return of ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 13 of 42 income, the assessee-bank treated these investments as stock-in- trade placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (240 ITR 355) wherein it is held that when the bank acquired investments pursuant to RBI guidelines governing SLR investments, though they are treated as investments in the books of account, they should be treated as part of the business assets. Following this dictum, the assessee-bank has treated them as stock-in-trade for income-tax purposes. The assessee-b…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…ve Bank of India. In the return of ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 13 of 42 income, the assessee-bank treated these investments as stock-in- trade placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (240 ITR 355) wherein it is held that when the bank acquired investments pursuant to RBI guidelines governing SLR investments, though they are treated as investments in the books of account, they should be treated as part of the business assets. Following this dictum, the assessee-bank has treated them as stock-in-trade for income-tax purposes. The assessee-b…

Addl.Ci.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…ve Bank of India. In the return of ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 13 of 42 income, the assessee-bank treated these investments as stock-in- trade placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (240 ITR 355) wherein it is held that when the bank acquired investments pursuant to RBI guidelines governing SLR investments, though they are treated as investments in the books of account, they should be treated as part of the business assets. Following this dictum, the assessee-bank has treated them as stock-in-trade for income-tax purposes. The assessee-b…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…ve Bank of India. In the return of ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 13 of 42 income, the assessee-bank treated these investments as stock-in- trade placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (240 ITR 355) wherein it is held that when the bank acquired investments pursuant to RBI guidelines governing SLR investments, though they are treated as investments in the books of account, they should be treated as part of the business assets. Following this dictum, the assessee-bank has treated them as stock-in-trade for income-tax purposes. The assessee-b…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 601/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…ve Bank of India. In the return of ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 13 of 42 income, the assessee-bank treated these investments as stock-in- trade placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (240 ITR 355) wherein it is held that when the bank acquired investments pursuant to RBI guidelines governing SLR investments, though they are treated as investments in the books of account, they should be treated as part of the business assets. Following this dictum, the assessee-bank has treated them as stock-in-trade for income-tax purposes. The assessee-b…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…ve Bank of India. In the return of ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 13 of 42 income, the assessee-bank treated these investments as stock-in- trade placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (240 ITR 355) wherein it is held that when the bank acquired investments pursuant to RBI guidelines governing SLR investments, though they are treated as investments in the books of account, they should be treated as part of the business assets. Following this dictum, the assessee-bank has treated them as stock-in-trade for income-tax purposes. The assessee-b…

Addl.CIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…ve Bank of India. In the return of ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 13 of 42 income, the assessee-bank treated these investments as stock-in- trade placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (240 ITR 355) wherein it is held that when the bank acquired investments pursuant to RBI guidelines governing SLR investments, though they are treated as investments in the books of account, they should be treated as part of the business assets. Following this dictum, the assessee-bank has treated them as stock-in-trade for income-tax purposes. The assessee-b…

M/S. Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…ve Bank of India. In the return of ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 13 of 42 income, the assessee-bank treated these investments as stock-in- trade placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (240 ITR 355) wherein it is held that when the bank acquired investments pursuant to RBI guidelines governing SLR investments, though they are treated as investments in the books of account, they should be treated as part of the business assets. Following this dictum, the assessee-bank has treated them as stock-in-trade for income-tax purposes. The assessee-b…

DCIT, Circle - 6 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Uco Bank, Kolkata

ITA No.1329/K/08

ITA 197/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri D.S Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjana, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…A. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us for the various assessment years on various grounds as listed hereinabove. 8.1. We have heard the rival submissions. The Learned AR argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court in assessee’s own case reported in (1999) 240 ITR 355 (SC) had held that the assessee has been holding the shares held as stock in trade and has been valuing the same at cost or market value which is lower for several decades. Based on this finding by the Hon’ble Apex Court, he argued that the shares were not held by the assessee with an intention to earn dividend income and instead the same were he…

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1195/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II
Section 144Section 194A(3)

…following consistent and regular method of accounting system, there is no justification in interfering with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue of amortization of premium on government securities. United Commercial Bank Vs CIT(1999) 156 CTR (SC) 380: (1999) 240 ITR 355 (SC) and South Indian Bank Ltd. (ITA NO.126/Coch/2004, dated ……Sept.2005 followed”. ii) The Khanapur Co-Op. Bank Ltd Vs ITO –ITA No.141/PNJ/2011 dated 8.9.2011: The Hon’ble Bench of Panaji Tribunal had recorded its findings that 6. Likewise, the premium amortized at Rs.1,78,098/- is claimed to be in respect of securities held 19 ITA No.1195(Ba…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ritesh Tiwari, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5884/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillaii.T.A .No. 5884/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Ritesh Tiwari, Ward-28(2), 4014, Chawri Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 Appellant By Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. A. K. Chadha, Ca

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 5884/Del/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Ritesh Tiwari, Ward-28(2), 4014, Chawri Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 Appellant by Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. A. K. Chadha, CA Date of Hearing 17.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement 08/02/2016 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. The present appeal arises from the order of the ld.CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi vide order dated 28.11.2011 for assessment year 2008-09 on the follo…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3388/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3357/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Yes Bank Limited, बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.614, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, 400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3388/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank Limited, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 14ASection 35D

…case for the assessment year 2006-07 passed in ITA No.5833/Mum/2012 and we notice that the Tribunal has followed the following decisions and held that loss on arising on re-valuation of securities is required to be allowed : a) United Commercial Bank V/s CIT (240 ITR 355)(SC); b) CIT V/s Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334)(Bom); and c) CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd IT A No.330 of 2012 (Bom). In view of the above decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases referred above, we uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) on this issue. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed and appeal of…

Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3357/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3357/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Yes Bank Limited, बनाम/ Addl.Commissioner Of Income 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.614, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, 400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3388/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank Limited, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Tax 7(3), Vs. Discovery Of India Building, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Dr.A B Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400018 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 14ASection 35D

…case for the assessment year 2006-07 passed in ITA No.5833/Mum/2012 and we notice that the Tribunal has followed the following decisions and held that loss on arising on re-valuation of securities is required to be allowed : a) United Commercial Bank V/s CIT (240 ITR 355)(SC); b) CIT V/s Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334)(Bom); and c) CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd IT A No.330 of 2012 (Bom). In view of the above decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases referred above, we uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) on this issue. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed and appeal of…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6921/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6921/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 बनाम/ The Acit, Union Bank Of India, Large Tax Payer Unit, Union Bank Bhavan, Vs. Centre-1, 29Th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6980/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, The Acit, Union Bank Bhavan, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vs. 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, World Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6922/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम/ The Acit, Union Bank Of India, Large Tax Payer Unit, Union Bank Bhavan, Vs. Centre-1, 29Th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacu 0564G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Department By: Shri G.M. Dass ""यथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Dass
Section 1Section 2Section 2(45)Section 24ASection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…Co-ordinate Bench in assesee’s own case for A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA 8 Union Bank of India No. 2590/M/01. We find that while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee the Tribunal has followed the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank 240 ITR 355. Respectfully following the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), we decline to interfere. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 13. Issues raised vide ground No. 3 are identical to the issues considered by the Tribunal in assesee’s own case in A.Y. 208-09 in ITA Nos. 4678 & 4842/M/2013.…

ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4842/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4678/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Central Accounts Department, Vs. World Trade Center, 6Th Floor, Cuff Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 10Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80L

…n of investment. Identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case in AY 2007-08 (supra) and it has been decided in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (240 ITR 355) and also the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of Ld CIT(A) on this issue, since he has also followed the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of UCO Bank (supra) in deciding this issue in favo…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4678/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4678/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Central Accounts Department, Vs. World Trade Center, 6Th Floor, Cuff Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 10Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80L

…n of investment. Identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case in AY 2007-08 (supra) and it has been decided in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (240 ITR 355) and also the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of Ld CIT(A) on this issue, since he has also followed the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of UCO Bank (supra) in deciding this issue in favo…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi

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

ITA 1961/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C.SUDHIR, JM AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Addl. CIT F-14, IVth Floor, Range-13 Competent House, Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACO0191M Asstt. Year: 2007-08 ACIT Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce Circle – 13(1), Room No. 406, F-14, IVth Floor, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Competent House, Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACO0191M Assessee by : Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CA Revenue by : Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR Date of H…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1937/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C.SUDHIR, JM AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Addl. CIT F-14, IVth Floor, Range-13 Competent House, Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACO0191M Asstt. Year: 2007-08 ACIT Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce Circle – 13(1), Room No. 406, F-14, IVth Floor, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Competent House, Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACO0191M Assessee by : Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CA Revenue by : Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR Date of H…