Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing C.I.T.-Iii vs The Baroda Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd. on 29 July, 2005

Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S Capital Local Area Bank Ltd., ... on 15 March, 2017

"3. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Suresh Kumar on behalf of the Appellant/Revenue that any substantial question of law arise in the present case that require our answer. We find that issue raised in this Appeal is squarely covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Bank of Baroda, reported in (2003) ITR 334 and a judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2013) 356 ITR 546. We will analyze these two judgments later, after we advert to the facts in the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 38 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mehsana Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 October, 2015

13. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the action of lower authorities for disallowing loss arose on the year end revaluation of securities. Our view is supported by decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 226 Taxman 132/49 taxmann.com 335, United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC), Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 533 (SC) and CIT vs. Bank of Baroda (2003) 262 ITR 334/129 Taxman 716 (Bom). Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court and considering the classification of security so made and the loss arose on account of revaluation of securities are required to be allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of both the lower authorities and matter is restored back to the file of AO for deciding afresh in the light of our above observation. We direct accordingly."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bansabati Co-Operative Bank Ltd., , ... vs Principal Cit - 8, Kolkata , Kolkata on 3 December, 2020

In this case, we note that the view of Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous, since Section 80P deduction has been correctly granted by the Assessing Officer in consonance with the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Baroda Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), so the view of AO is a plausible view and therefore Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without satisfying the condition precedent essential to invoke revisional jurisdiction. In such a scenario, the Ld PCIT ought not to have invoked the power u/s 263 of the Act and therefore, the invoking of the revisional jurisdiction itself is held to be bad in law and therefore quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dbs Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 24 August, 2016

In fact, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court following its own decision in Bank of Baroda (supra), reiterated the same view in case of CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 377 (Bom.). It is also an uncontroverted fact that except the impugned assessment year, the Assessing Officer has allowed assessee's claim in all other assessment years. Therefore, considered in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year 1999-2000 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court referred to above the deduction claimed by the assessee being an allowable deduction there cannot be any escapement of income on account of deduction claimed by the assessee. Thus, for the aforesaid reason also, re-opening of assessment is invalid. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in annulling the assessment. Accordingly, we uphold the same by dismissing the ground raised by the Department.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Charotar Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee on 13 January, 2012

4. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we are of the conscientious view that no mistake at all was committed by the Tribunal as indicated by the applicant. The Tribunal has referred a decision of Surat District Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. 85 ITD 1 (SB) and also noted that the said decision was approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Baroda Peoples Co- operative Bank Ltd. 280 ITR 282 (Guj.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharidvechan ... on 12 December, 2005

40. Applying the principles laid down by this Court in the case of CIT v. Baroda Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd (supra) to the facts of the present case, in Page 110 the first instance, income under the particular head namely profits and gains of business or profession comprising of the specific item namely profits and gains from activities specified under sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 80P is required to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, i.e. all permissible deductions/allowances have to be first taken into consideration (excluding deductions under section VIA) and the figure of net income arrived at after such computation has to form part of total income.
Gujarat High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next