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

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 173/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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 172/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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…

Manikrao Amrutrao Satav, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissiner of Income Tax Circle-12, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 391/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.391/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Manikrao Amrutrao Satav, At Post Wagholi, Tal.Haveli, Nr. Jain College, Wagholi – 412207. Pan: Banps2490G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Smt Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…ction or proceedings outstepping the scope shall render unlawful. Consistently same view has been propounded in plethora of judicial precedents including the cases reported in 187 CTR (SC) 297 : (2004) 267 ITR 272 (SC) ‘CoC Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.’ and 343 ITR 270 ‘Catholic Syrian Bank Vs. CIT’, and 295 ITR 0256 & 169 taxmann 0004 ‘CIT Vs Best Plastics (P) Ltd.’ and 120 taxmann.com 167 ‘CIT Vs Padmavati’ etc. 6. In the present case, the Ld. AO made the impugned addition of ₹30,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act not falling within the scope of limited scrutiny and admittedly is without converting the limited…

Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 370/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…his issue afresh by considering the decision rendered by ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank, by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej &Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. 328 ITR 81 and by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. 344 ITR 259. The A.O. while passing the final assessment order, duly considered the above said 3 decisions and confirmed the disallowance originally made in the draft assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 22.3 We heard the parties on this issue and perused the records. We notice that the coordinate bench has considered an…

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…roviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, apply only to rural advances. 57. We noted that, as reliance placed by assessee, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). The Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the assessee had claimed a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act pertaining to urban advances. The deduction was not allowed to the assessee on the basis that deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act can be allowed only to the extent it is in excess of the provisions created and…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…roviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, apply only to rural advances. 57. We noted that, as reliance placed by assessee, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). The Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the assessee had claimed a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act pertaining to urban advances. The deduction was not allowed to the assessee on the basis that deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act can be allowed only to the extent it is in excess of the provisions created and…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance in the provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction as held in the following cases:- ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 7 of 31 Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) State Bank of Hyderabad (2015) 8 TMI 836 (Hyd. Trib) IDBI Bank Ltd. (2017) 9 TMI 1289 (Mum. Trib_ Oriental Bank of Commerce (2017) 11 TMI 1589 (Del Trib.) 12. It was submitted that the assessee had claimed only a sum of Rs.413,94,00, 446 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) whereas the AO has disallow…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance in the provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction as held in the following cases:- ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 7 of 31 Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) State Bank of Hyderabad (2015) 8 TMI 836 (Hyd. Trib) IDBI Bank Ltd. (2017) 9 TMI 1289 (Mum. Trib_ Oriental Bank of Commerce (2017) 11 TMI 1589 (Del Trib.) 12. It was submitted that the assessee had claimed only a sum of Rs.413,94,00, 446 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) whereas the AO has disallow…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance in the provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction as held in the following cases:- ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 7 of 31 Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) State Bank of Hyderabad (2015) 8 TMI 836 (Hyd. Trib) IDBI Bank Ltd. (2017) 9 TMI 1289 (Mum. Trib_ Oriental Bank of Commerce (2017) 11 TMI 1589 (Del Trib.) 12. It was submitted that the assessee had claimed only a sum of Rs.413,94,00, 446 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) whereas the AO has disallow…

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…n- rural) should be first adjusted against the PBDD a/c allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act and only the excess should be allowed as deduction. He expressed the view that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (2012)(343 ITR 270)(SC) was rendered under the assumption that the banks would maintain separate PBDD a/c in respect of rural branches and non-rural branches and therefore it is possible to distinguish PBDD as one in respect of rural branches and non-rural branches. The Ld CIT(A) expressed the view that the claim of the bank that the provisions of sec. 36(1)(viia)…

M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…n- rural) should be first adjusted against the PBDD a/c allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act and only the excess should be allowed as deduction. He expressed the view that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (2012)(343 ITR 270)(SC) was rendered under the assumption that the banks would maintain separate PBDD a/c in respect of rural branches and non-rural branches and therefore it is possible to distinguish PBDD as one in respect of rural branches and non-rural branches. The Ld CIT(A) expressed the view that the claim of the bank that the provisions of sec. 36(1)(viia)…

M/S the State Bank of Patiala, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 510/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 The State Bank Of India Asst. Cit Circle-Patiala, (Successor To State Bank Of Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Patiala), Patiala-147001 Dgm & Cfo, Sbi, Local Head Office – Chandigarh, 2Nd Floor, Sector 17A, Chandigarh- 160017. Pan No. Aaccs 0143 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved & Mr. Ninadpatade, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…med allowability of bad debts written off us 36(1)(vii) claimed allowability of bad debts written off us 36(1)(vii) claimed based on decision of Apex Court in based on decision of Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd (343 ITR 270) stating that the same was not raised Bank Ltd (343 ITR 270) stating that the same was not raised Bank Ltd (343 ITR 270) stating that the same was not raised before Assessing Officer. before Assessing Officer. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee i.e. State Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee i.e. State B…

M/S Ub Sports Management Overseas Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2930/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

…sued by the CBDT are binding on the Revenue as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions including - • K. P Varghese v. ITO(1981) 131 ITR 597 • CIT v. Hero Cycles Private Limited (1998) 228 ITR 463 • Catholic Syrian Bank Limited v. CIT (2012) 3 SCC 784 • UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 307 ITR 324 15.4 The learned AO erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Cairn UK Holdings Ltd. v DIT [2013] 38 taxmann.com 179 and CIT v. Mitsubishi M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. Motors Corporation (in ITA No. 741/2016) upholding levy of tax at beneficial rate of 10 per cent. 16. The le…

M/S Palmer Investment Group Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2929/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malthora, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

…sued by the CBDT are binding on the Revenue as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions including - • K. P Varghese v. ITO(1981) 131 ITR 597 • CIT v. Hero Cycles Private Limited (1998) 228 ITR 463 • Catholic Syrian Bank Limited v. CIT (2012) 3 SCC 784 • UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 307 ITR 324 15.4 The learned AO erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Cairn UK Holdings Ltd. v DIT [2013] 38 taxmann.com 179 and CIT v. Mitsubishi M/s. Palmer Investment Group Ltd. Motors Corporation (in ITA No. 741/2016) upholding levy of tax at beneficial rate of 10 per cent. 16. The le…

Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.Cit, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. Pan : Aaaar 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ "यायपीठ, , , , राजकोट "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2011-12 Shri Rajkot District Cooperative Vs. Pr.CIT, Rajkot-1 Bank Ltd. Rajkot. ‘Jilla Bank Bhavan’, Kasturba Road Opp: Chaudhari High School Rajkot. PAN : AAAAR 0564 K 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.AR Revenue by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, l…

The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Citizens Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 102/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Anadkat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. Sr. D.R
Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ] Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 101 & 102/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 The ACIT, Citizens Co.Op Bank Ltd. Circle-2(1), Near Mahatma Gandhi Rajkot Vs Vidhyalaya, Jawahar (Appellant) Road, Rajkot-360001 PAN: AAAAC0325K (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ankit Anadkat, A.R. Revenue by: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 30-11-2022 Date of pronouncement : 23-12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMB…

The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Citizens Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 101/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Anadkat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. Sr. D.R
Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ] Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 101 & 102/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 The ACIT, Citizens Co.Op Bank Ltd. Circle-2(1), Near Mahatma Gandhi Rajkot Vs Vidhyalaya, Jawahar (Appellant) Road, Rajkot-360001 PAN: AAAAC0325K (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ankit Anadkat, A.R. Revenue by: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 30-11-2022 Date of pronouncement : 23-12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Rites Limited

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/270/2022HC Delhi29 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

Section 37Section 37(1)

…268/2022 Page 8 of 8 13. It is well established that circulars are binding on the revenue. [See: Catholic Syrian Bank Vs. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC)] 14. Therefore, for the appellant/revenue to contend in the aforementioned appeals, that the Tribunal had erred in law in sustaining the deduction claimed by the respondents/assessees under Section 37(1) of the Act is an argument, which cannot be accepted. 15. Accordingly, the question of law is decided against the appellant/revenue…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Pec Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/268/2022HC Delhi29 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

Section 37Section 37(1)

…268/2022 Page 8 of 8 13. It is well established that circulars are binding on the revenue. [See: Catholic Syrian Bank Vs. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC)] 14. Therefore, for the appellant/revenue to contend in the aforementioned appeals, that the Tribunal had erred in law in sustaining the deduction claimed by the respondents/assessees under Section 37(1) of the Act is an argument, which cannot be accepted. 15. Accordingly, the question of law is decided against the appellant/revenue…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Pec Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA-268/2022HC Delhi29 Nov 2022
Section 37Section 37(1)

…268/2022 Page 8 of 8 13. It is well established that circulars are binding on the revenue. [See: Catholic Syrian Bank Vs. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC)] 14. Therefore, for the appellant/revenue to contend in the aforementioned appeals, that the Tribunal had erred in law in sustaining the deduction claimed by the respondents/assessees under Section 37(1) of the Act is an argument, which cannot be accepted. 15. Accordingly, the question of law is decided against the appellant/revenue…