Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

343 ITR 270Supreme Court of India2012#235 most cited

What is Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), the debt must be actually written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, distinct from merely making a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee bears the onus to satisfy the conditions under both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act.

326

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT · Section 36(1)(vii) · Section 36(1)(viia) · bad debt deduction · actual write-off · provision for bad and doubtful debts · irrecoverable debt · Section 36(2) · banking companies · TRF Ltd distinguished · Southern Technologies Ltd followed

Also reported as

206 Taxmann 1823 SCC 784

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 115JBSection 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(2)section 36(1)(v)section 36(1)(viii)section 46section 36(1)(vii)section 35dsection 10(34)eligible businessinterest on securities

Judgments citing Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

Asst CIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…in distinct fields and deduction under section 36(1)(vii) in respect of non-rural advances is not barred, subject to statutory conditions. 11.13. We have perused the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT reported (2012) 343 ITR 270 which is subsequent decision to the Full bench of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of South Indian Bank (supra). 11.14. It is relevant to note that the later decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra) explained the scope and interplay of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) by holding that the two deductions…

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…in distinct fields and deduction under section 36(1)(vii) in respect of non-rural advances is not barred, subject to statutory conditions. 11.13. We have perused the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT reported (2012) 343 ITR 270 which is subsequent decision to the Full bench of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of South Indian Bank (supra). 11.14. It is relevant to note that the later decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT (supra) explained the scope and interplay of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) by holding that the two deductions…

Iphonline Limited (Now As Asapp Info Global Servies Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5946/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

…not been able to prove that it is not hit by the restriction of the provision of section 36(2) of the Act. The Ld. Commissioner also observed that in view of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrien Bank Limited Vs. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270, the Assessee must prove all the ingredients of section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2). Proper documentation and adherence to conditions are essential for claiming Bad debt deduction. The Assessee neither before the Assessing Officer nor before him has been able to discharge the onus cast upon it convincingly by presenting the above noted documents…

The Dakshin Dinajpur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Balurghat vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Malda

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2187/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

…provisions of these se3ctions , we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (2012)343 ITR 270(SC). We note that the decision relied by the ld. AO in case of Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore [2010] 187 Taxman 346 (SC)/[2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC)/[2010] 228 CTR 440 (SC)[11-01-2010] ITA Nos. 2187 to 2189/KOL/2025 The Dakshin Dinajpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 is not…

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1548/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…d Debts written off Closing Balance 2015-16 (6,086.40) 2,926.41 2,619.63 (5,779.62) 2016-17 (5,779.62) 38. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC): - “17. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) would come into play in the grant of deductions, subject to the limitation contained in Section 36(2) of the Act. Any bad debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year is the deduction which the assessee would be entitled to get,…

ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1547/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…ce Balance 36(1)(viia) written off 2015-16 (6,086.40) 2,926.41 2,619.63 (5,779.62) 2016-17 (5,779.62) 38. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC): - “17. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) would come into play in the grant of deductions, subject to the limitation contained in Section 36(2) of the Act. Any bad debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year is the deduction which the assessee would be entitled to get,…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

ITA 1452/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…39.20) 2013-14 (2,439.20) 2,039.28 4,550.50 (4,950.42) 2014-15 (4,950.42) 2,078.70 3,214.68 (6,086.40) 37. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC): - “17. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) would come into play in the grant of deductions, subject to the limitation contained in Section 36(2) of the Act. Any bad debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year is the deduction which the assessee would be entitled to get,…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1451/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…ce Balance 36(1)(viia) written off 2015-16 (6,086.40) 2,926.41 2,619.63 (5,779.62) 2016-17 (5,779.62) 38. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC): - “17. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) would come into play in the grant of deductions, subject to the limitation contained in Section 36(2) of the Act. Any bad debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year is the deduction which the assessee would be entitled to get,…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), C.R Building, ITO New Delhi vs. M M Healthcare Ltd., Pushpanjali, East Delhi, Anand Vihar, Delhi

ITA 3522/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. M. M. Healthcare Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Pushpanjali, East Delhi, New Delhi Anand Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1799D (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.238/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.3522/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. M. M. Healthcare Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pushpanjali, East Delhi, Tax, Circle-16(1), Anand Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1799D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.3522/Del/2025 Along With The Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No.238/Del/2025 For Assessment

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…-lending which is carried on by the assessee; (iv) the assessee is obliged to prove to the AO that the case satisfies the ingredients of s. 36(1)(vii) as well as s. 36(2).—Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 248 CTR (SC) 1 : (2012) 68 DTR (SC) 1 : (2012) 3 SCC 784 and Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT (2010) 228 CTR (SC) 440 : (2010) 34 DTR (SC) 11 : (2010) 2 SCR 380 followed; T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 14 : (2010) 35 DTR (SC) 156 : (2010) 13 SCC 532 distinguished. Your comments are solicited on allow ability on bad debts on Rs. 73000000/- in view of above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court…

Elcome Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6188/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr.-DR
Section 250Section 250(4)Section 37Section 41(1)

…the decision in the case is also referred to the decision in T.R.F. Ltd. (supra). The apex Court also referred to the decision of in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 2012 SC 1538/[2012] 18 taxmann.com 282/206 Taxman 182/343 ITR 270 (SC) and Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 187 Taxman 346/320 ITR 577 (SC) and by referring to the said decisions it was observed in Paragraph 18 as follows: " 18. It is evident from the above rulings of this court, that: (i) The amount of any bad debt or part thereof has to be written-off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assess…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

ITA 5690/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

…ook Profit u/s 115JB of the Act. b - i) Without prejudice to the above and in the alternate, no disallowance administrative expenditure should be made, in absence of precise formulae (as held in CIT v. Dhanalakshmy Bank Ltd. and (other appeals) by Kerala High 344 ITR 259), in this regard. b - ii) Without prejudice to the above and in the alternate, the disallowance administrative expenditure should be made only of 2% of expenditure of Rs. 5.27 crores incurred by the Project and Investment Division of HO and not 90% of Rs. 12.99 crores of the expenditure of entire HO. For the purpose, the following amounts should…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4109/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

…ok Profit u/s 115JB of the Act. b - i) Without prejudice to the above and in the alternate, no disallowance administrative expenditure should be made, in absence of precise formulae (as held in CIT v. Dhanalakshmy Bank Ltd. and (other appeals) by Kerala High 344 ITR 259), in this regard. b - ii) Without prejudice to the above and in the alternate, the disallowance administrative expenditure should be made only of 2% of expenditure of Rs.5.27 crores incurred by the Project and Investment Division of HO and not 90% of Rs.12.99 crores of the expenditure of entire HO. For the purpose, the following amounts should b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur

ITA 1889/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट" वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, DCIT, Erode Road, vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [PAN:AAACT-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [PAN:AAA…

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Trichy

ITA 1502/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट" वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, DCIT, Erode Road, vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [PAN:AAACT-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [PAN:AAA…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

…nt orders. They are binding on all income-tax authorities as per section 119(1) of the Act and the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases, including UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 104 Taxman 547 (SC) and Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT (2012) 18 Taxmann.com 282 (SC). The learned AR emphasized that circulars and instructions issued by the Board are binding on the tax authorities and cannot be ignored, especially when they grant administrative relief to the taxpayer. 8.4.3 It was pointed out that in the case of the appellant, the prohibitory orders under section 132(3) of the Act were issued on 19.…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

…nt orders. They are binding on all income-tax authorities as per section 119(1) of the Act and the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases, including UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 104 Taxman 547 (SC) and Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT (2012) 18 Taxmann.com 282 (SC). The learned AR emphasized that circulars and instructions issued by the Board are binding on the tax authorities and cannot be ignored, especially when they grant administrative relief to the taxpayer. 8.4.3 It was pointed out that in the case of the appellant, the prohibitory orders under section 132(3) of the Act were issued on 19…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Room No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. Appellant) Small Industries Development Bank of India, SME Development Centre, Vs. C-11, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Small Industries Development Bank Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), of India, Room No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, SME Development Centre, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. Vs. C-11, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mu…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2971/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Room No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. Appellant) Small Industries Development Bank of India, SME Development Centre, Vs. C-11, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2970/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Small Industries Development Bank Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), of India, Room No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, SME Development Centre, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. Vs. C-11, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mu…