CIT v. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd.

240 ITR 573High Court#13816 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 201(1A)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)Section 90(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 36(1)(viii)interest under section 201(1a)section 201(1a)section 90section 201revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 36(1)section 20section 37(1)section 36

Judgments citing CIT v. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2392/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh
Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…)(viii), observed that the amount claimed as deduction should have been carried to such reserve account during the relevant previous year. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (240 ITR 573) for the said conclusion. 6 Bank of Baroda Therefore, applying the provisions of Sec. 263 read with Explanation-2, Ld. AO was directed to disallow the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and determine the total income accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us challenging the validity of jurisdiction u/s 263. 8. Upon due consideration,…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh
Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…)(viii), observed that the amount claimed as deduction should have been carried to such reserve account during the relevant previous year. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (240 ITR 573) for the said conclusion. 6 Bank of Baroda Therefore, applying the provisions of Sec. 263 read with Explanation-2, Ld. AO was directed to disallow the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and determine the total income accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us challenging the validity of jurisdiction u/s 263. 8. Upon due consideration,…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh
Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…)(viii), observed that the amount claimed as deduction should have been carried to such reserve account during the relevant previous year. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (240 ITR 573) for the said conclusion. 6 Bank of Baroda Therefore, applying the provisions of Sec. 263 read with Explanation-2, Ld. AO was directed to disallow the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and determine the total income accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us challenging the validity of jurisdiction u/s 263. 8. Upon due consideration,…

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3347/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3346/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3347/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Bank Of Baroda Pr.Cit-2 3Rd Floor, Room No. 344 C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre बनाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-1534-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri C. Naresh-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri K. Madhusudhan-Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01/10/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. By Way Of These Appeals, The Assessee Is Contesting The Validity Of Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 As Exercised By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…)(viii), observed that the amount claimed as deduction should have been carried to such reserve account during the relevant previous year. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT V/s Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (240 ITR 573) for the said conclusion. Therefore, applying the provisions of Sec. 263 read with Explanation-2, Ld. AO was directed to disallow the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) and determine the total income accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us challenging the validity of jurisdiction u/s 263. 8. Upon due consideration, we find that it w…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed as above

ITA 681/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 1Section 115WSection 147Section 36

…CIT(Appeals) while upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in support of its finding that the creation of reserve is a pre-condition for claiming deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act as under: 1) CIT Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., 240 ITR 573 (Mad) 2) Kerala Financial Corporation Vs. CIT 129 Taxmann 365(Ker) 10 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited 7. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the authorities below and case laws cited before us and also the documents which were brought to our notice during the course of hearing. 8. The issue befo…

The State Bank of India, Patiala vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 861/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar,CIT DR
Section 36(1)(viii)

…(Appeals) while upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in support of its finding that the creation of reserve is a pre-condition for claiming deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act as under: 1) CIT Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., 240 ITR 573 (Mad) 2) Kerala Financial Corporation Vs. CIT 129 Taxmann 365(Ker) 7. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the authorities below and case laws cited before us and also the documents which were brought to our notice during the course of hearing. 8. The issue before us pertains to allowance…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 721/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar,CIT DR
Section 36(1)(viii)

…(Appeals) while upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in support of its finding that the creation of reserve is a pre-condition for claiming deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act as under: 1) CIT Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., 240 ITR 573 (Mad) 2) Kerala Financial Corporation Vs. CIT 129 Taxmann 365(Ker) 7. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the authorities below and case laws cited before us and also the documents which were brought to our notice during the course of hearing. 8. The issue before us pertains to allowance…

CIT v. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd. (240 ITR 573) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax