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 367,154 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

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. ACIT, Circle-II, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 857/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…d to get the benefit of section 36(1)(viia) and 43D of the Act, but it does not at any place deals with the limit up- to which this deduction has to be restricted to. Another case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., vs. CIT, 343 ITR 270 (SC) deals with the issue of deduction on account of provisions for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) and also deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This case basically deals with the interplay of deduction between the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts and deductions provided in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupruam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 856/CHNY/2020[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…d to get the benefit of section 36(1)(viia) and 43D of the Act, but it does not at any place deals with the limit up- to which this deduction has to be restricted to. Another case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., vs. CIT, 343 ITR 270 (SC) deals with the issue of deduction on account of provisions for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) and also deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This case basically deals with the interplay of deduction between the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts and deductions provided in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 855/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…d to get the benefit of section 36(1)(viia) and 43D of the Act, but it does not at any place deals with the limit up- to which this deduction has to be restricted to. Another case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., vs. CIT, 343 ITR 270 (SC) deals with the issue of deduction on account of provisions for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) and also deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This case basically deals with the interplay of deduction between the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts and deductions provided in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s…

The Villupuram District Central Coopertative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 854/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…d to get the benefit of section 36(1)(viia) and 43D of the Act, but it does not at any place deals with the limit up- to which this deduction has to be restricted to. Another case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., vs. CIT, 343 ITR 270 (SC) deals with the issue of deduction on account of provisions for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) and also deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This case basically deals with the interplay of deduction between the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts and deductions provided in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s…

The Cuddalore District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Cuddalore vs. DCIT Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2645/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…d to get the benefit of section 36(1)(viia) and 43D of the Act, but it does not at any place deals with the limit up- to which this deduction has to be restricted to. Another case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., vs. CIT, 343 ITR 270 (SC) deals with the issue of deduction on account of provisions for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) and also deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This case basically deals with the interplay of deduction between the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts and deductions provided in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s…

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA Nos. 472 to 474/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 14 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 20012-13 & 2014-15) Chengazhasseril Thomas Asst. CIT, Kurian Central Circle, Chengazhasseril Kottayam Keezhampara P.O. vs. Melampara, Bharananganam Kottayam 686578 [PAN:ACKPT3883G] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 47 to 50/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 06 to 09 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15) V.D. Devasia Asst. CIT, Valiplackal, Teekoy P.O. Central Circle, vs. Kottayam 686580 Kottaya…

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA Nos. 472 to 474/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 14 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 20012-13 & 2014-15) Chengazhasseril Thomas Asst. CIT, Kurian Central Circle, Chengazhasseril Kottayam Keezhampara P.O. vs. Melampara, Bharananganam Kottayam 686578 [PAN:ACKPT3883G] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 47 to 50/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 06 to 09 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15) V.D. Devasia Asst. CIT, Valiplackal, Teekoy P.O. Central Circle, vs. Kottayam 686580 Kottaya…

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA Nos. 472 to 474/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 14 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 20012-13 & 2014-15) Chengazhasseril Thomas Asst. CIT, Kurian Central Circle, Chengazhasseril Kottayam Keezhampara P.O. vs. Melampara, Bharananganam Kottayam 686578 [PAN:ACKPT3883G] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 47 to 50/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 06 to 09 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15) V.D. Devasia Asst. CIT, Valiplackal, Teekoy P.O. Central Circle, vs. Kottayam 686580 Kottaya…

Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, Kottayam vs. ACIT Central Circle Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA Nos. 472 to 474/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 14 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 20012-13 & 2014-15) Chengazhasseril Thomas Asst. CIT, Kurian Central Circle, Chengazhasseril Kottayam Keezhampara P.O. vs. Melampara, Bharananganam Kottayam 686578 [PAN:ACKPT3883G] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 47 to 50/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 06 to 09 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15) V.D. Devasia Asst. CIT, Valiplackal, Teekoy P.O. Central Circle, vs. Kottayam 686580 Kottaya…

Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, Kottayam vs. ACIT Central Circle Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/COCH/2022[ 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA Nos. 472 to 474/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 14 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 20012-13 & 2014-15) Chengazhasseril Thomas Asst. CIT, Kurian Central Circle, Chengazhasseril Kottayam Keezhampara P.O. vs. Melampara, Bharananganam Kottayam 686578 [PAN:ACKPT3883G] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 47 to 50/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 06 to 09 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15) V.D. Devasia Asst. CIT, Valiplackal, Teekoy P.O. Central Circle, vs. Kottayam 686580 Kottaya…

Chengazhasseril Thomas Kurian, Kottayam vs. ACIT Central Circle Kottayam, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA Nos. 472 to 474/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 14 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 20012-13 & 2014-15) Chengazhasseril Thomas Asst. CIT, Kurian Central Circle, Chengazhasseril Kottayam Keezhampara P.O. vs. Melampara, Bharananganam Kottayam 686578 [PAN:ACKPT3883G] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 47 to 50/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 06 to 09 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15) V.D. Devasia Asst. CIT, Valiplackal, Teekoy P.O. Central Circle, vs. Kottayam 686580 Kottaya…

V D Devasia, Kottayam vs. ACIT, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals by the assessees are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 64

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AccountantMemberand Shri Manomohan Das, JudicialMember ITA Nos. 472 to 474/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 14 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 20012-13 & 2014-15) Chengazhasseril Thomas Asst. CIT, Kurian Central Circle, Chengazhasseril Kottayam Keezhampara P.O. vs. Melampara, Bharananganam Kottayam 686578 [PAN:ACKPT3883G] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 47 to 50/Coch/2022 & SA Nos. 06 to 09 to 16/2022 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15) V.D. Devasia Asst. CIT, Valiplackal, Teekoy P.O. Central Circle, vs. Kottayam 686580 Kottaya…

Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Tuticorin vs. DCIT, C-1, Tuticorin

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.542/Chny/2021 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited Dcit बनाम 57, Victoria Extension Road, Circle-1 / Vs. Tuticorin-628 002. Tuticorin. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5558-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…viia) stood covered against the assessee in earlier decision of the Tribunal for AY 2011-12 vide ITA No.2297/Mds/2016 order dated 20-07-2016. In this order, the bench relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs. CIT (343 ITR 270) and held that the assessee cannot claim deduction of bad and doubtful debts of non-rural branches u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. However, in Tribunal’s decision for AY 2012-13 vide ITA No.1400/Chny2016 order dated 07-02-2019, this issue was restored back to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication. 8. The argument of Ld. AR is that the provision made…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 180/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…hich is beyond the period of one month. The Ld. AR in support of his argument heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd [1987] 34 Taxman 268 (Kerala HC) (ii) Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP). 10. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Board Circular referred to by the Ld. AR is not a Circular but it is only a Board Instruction issued for administrative convenience. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case laws re…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 179/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…hich is beyond the period of one month. The Ld. AR in support of his argument heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd [1987] 34 Taxman 268 (Kerala HC) (ii) Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP). 10. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Board Circular referred to by the Ld. AR is not a Circular but it is only a Board Instruction issued for administrative convenience. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case laws re…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…hich is beyond the period of one month. The Ld. AR in support of his argument heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd [1987] 34 Taxman 268 (Kerala HC) (ii) Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP). 10. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Board Circular referred to by the Ld. AR is not a Circular but it is only a Board Instruction issued for administrative convenience. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case laws re…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…hich is beyond the period of one month. The Ld. AR in support of his argument heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd [1987] 34 Taxman 268 (Kerala HC) (ii) Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP). 10. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Board Circular referred to by the Ld. AR is not a Circular but it is only a Board Instruction issued for administrative convenience. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case laws re…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…hich is beyond the period of one month. The Ld. AR in support of his argument heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd [1987] 34 Taxman 268 (Kerala HC) (ii) Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP). 10. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Board Circular referred to by the Ld. AR is not a Circular but it is only a Board Instruction issued for administrative convenience. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case laws re…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 175/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…hich is beyond the period of one month. The Ld. AR in support of his argument heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd [1987] 34 Taxman 268 (Kerala HC) (ii) Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP). 10. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Board Circular referred to by the Ld. AR is not a Circular but it is only a Board Instruction issued for administrative convenience. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case laws re…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 174/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…hich is beyond the period of one month. The Ld. AR in support of his argument heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd [1987] 34 Taxman 268 (Kerala HC) (ii) Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP). 10. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Board Circular referred to by the Ld. AR is not a Circular but it is only a Board Instruction issued for administrative convenience. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case laws re…