How many judgments cite CIT v. Syndicate Bank?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Syndicate Bank (422 ITR 460), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Syndicate Bank come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 36(1)(viia), Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 115JB, Section 36(1)(vii).

CIT v. Syndicate Bank

422 ITR 460High Court2020#4263 most cited

What is CIT v. Syndicate Bank authority for?

The deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad and doubtful debts is allowed to the extent of the actual provision made, subject to the prescribed ceiling. If the provision made is less than the prescribed limit, the deduction is limited to the actual provision made.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Syndicate Bank · Section 36(1)(viia) · deduction · provision for bad and doubtful debts · ceiling limit · actual provision

Also reported as

120 Taxmann.com 227

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 36(1)(viia)Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 115JB Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 8D

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(via)section 210 section 46 section 211 section 36(1)(viii)section 36(1)(viia)section 129 section 36(1)(vii)section 21 section 36 section 36(1)section 115j

Judgments citing CIT v. Syndicate Bank

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Syndicate Bank

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/810/2017HC Karnataka18 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 244ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.810 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD MANGALURU-575001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MALPE ROAD, AADIUDUPI AMBALAPADI PO, UDUPI-576103. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TAX CELL, HEAD OFFICE MANIPAL-576104 PAN:AACCS 4699E. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Syndicate Bank

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/807/2017HC Karnataka18 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 244ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.807 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD MANGALURU-575001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MALPE ROAD, AADIUDUPI AMBALAPADI PO, UDUPI-576103. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TAX CELL, HEAD OFFICE MANIPAL-576104 PAN:AACCS 4699E. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Syndicate Bank

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/812/2017HC Karnataka18 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 244ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.812 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD MANGALURU-575001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MALPE ROAD, AADIUDUPI AMBALAPADI PO, UDUPI-576103. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TAX CELL, HEAD OFFICE MANIPAL-576104 PAN:AACCS 4699E. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

WTA/4/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

…software, hardware and networking of computer etc., therefore, the expenditure is capital in nature. It is also submitted that second substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SYNDICATE BANK', 422 ITR 460 (KAR). In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (1980) 3 TAXMAN 69 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee with reference to substantial question of law submitted as follows: (i) The expenditure was…

M/S Ashoka Hi-Tech Builders P. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central)-1, Indore

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 686/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

…Court in the case of 21 Ashoka Hi-Tech Builders Pvt.Ltd ITA No.121/Ind/2016 &686/Ind/2016 CIT V/s A Krishnaswamy Mudliar (supra) ]. A reference may also be made to the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v/s Syndicate Bank reported in (2003) 261 ITR 528 . It is thus clear that the accrual of income under the mercantile system of accounting depends upon the accrual or crystallization of right to receive and hence in view of the accepted position that the appellant has maintained its accounts on mercantile basis, the question that requires consideration is as to when the right to receive the const…

Microsec Insurance Brokers Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1345/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 1345/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Microsec Insurance Brokers Ltd.................................………………………………………Appellant Shivam Chambers, 53, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Kolkata – 700 019. [Pan: Aadcm 3059 K] Ito Ward 7(1) Kolkata...................……………………………………………....................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Alok Nag, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 09, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 24, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 18, Kolkata Dated 15.04.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 5,00,000/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Penalty Charges Paid To Insurance Regularly & Development Authority “(Irda)”.

Section 143(3)

…2010-11 Microsec Insurance Brokers Ltd. of the case also make it clear that penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was not compensatory in nature and rather it has been levied for infringement of statutory regulations framed by IRDA. In the case of CIT vs Syndicate Bank 261 ITR 528, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held that payments made for infringement of Banking Regulations Act are not allowable. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Syndicate Bank, penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by the assessee for viola…

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

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)

Section 36(1)(viia)

…question were not in the nature of penalty for infraction of law. 36. It is not in dispute before us that the nature of the penalty in the present case is identical to the penalty that was disallowed on similar grounds in the case of CIT Vs. Syndicate Bank 261 ITR 528 (Kar). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that the penalty was not to be allowed as deduction. The question before the Hon’ble Court was as to whether penal interest to RBI for non-compliance with provisions of s. 24 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, is in the nature of penalty for infraction of law and hence to be disallowed under explanation…

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

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 578/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)

Section 36(1)(viia)