CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.

330 ITR 440High Court2011#839 most cited

What is CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. authority for?

Interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs) is not taxable under the mercantile system of accounting if there is no real income or no reasonable certainty of recovery. This principle governs income recognition, distinct from deductions for provisions under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. · Vasisth Chay Vyapar · Section 43D · interest income · Non-Performing Assets (NPA) · real income theory · mercantile system of accounting · Section 36 · provision for bad debts · right to receive income · Section 145 · computation of business income

Also reported as

196 Taxmann 169238 CTR 142

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 1961Section 115JBSection 43DSection 145Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Issues it is cited on

section 43dreal income theorysection 36(1)(viia)right to receivesection 45mercantile system of accountingsection 36(1)(vii)section 36(1)(iii)section 41section 43section 30section 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.

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

…ties also to be reckoned as income on realisation basis and the same has regularly been recognised in the books of account accordingly. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee before us in the case of CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 440 (Delhi), the Delhi High I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Court had to consider a case where the assessee, being a NBFC, treated the inter corporate deposits as an NPA, in terms of the directions of the RBI and, hence, did not recognise interest income in respect of the same. The Delhi High Court has recognised the real income th…

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

…ties also to be reckoned as income on realisation basis and the same has regularly been recognised in the books of account accordingly. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee before us in the case of CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 440 (Delhi), the Delhi High I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Court had to consider a case where the assessee, being a NBFC, treated the inter corporate deposits as an NPA, in terms of the directions of the RBI and, hence, did not recognise interest income in respect of the same. The Delhi High Court has recognised the real income th…

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

…ing regard to the guidelines issued by the RBI" would warrant necessarily to follow the guidelines superseding the prescribed rules in I.T. Rules, 1962 is therefore, clearly flawed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vashisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. 330 ITR 440 have clearly mentioned the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court that in so far as the permissible deductions or exclusions under the Acts are concerned, the same are admissible only if such deductions/exclusions satisfy the relevant conditions stipulated there for under the Act. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that the prudential norms do…

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

…ing regard to the guidelines issued by the RBI" would warrant necessarily to follow the guidelines superseding the prescribed rules in I.T. Rules, 1962 is therefore, clearly flawed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vashisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. 330 ITR 440 have clearly mentioned the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court that in so far as the permissible deductions or exclusions under the Acts are concerned, the same are admissible only if such deductions/exclusions satisfy the relevant conditions stipulated there for under the Act. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that the prudential norms do…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO vs. JOGINDRA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VILLAGE-RAJGARH ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 120/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 43D

…me” governs such cases and that notional accrual of interest, when 3 recovery is uncertain or doubtful, cannot be subjected to tax. He placed reliance on UCO Bank v. CIT (237 ITR 889 SC), Godhra Electricity Co. (225 ITR 746 SC), and Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (330 ITR 440 Del). 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is an admitted position that the assessee is a co-operative bank governed by the Reserve Bank of India’s Master Circular on Prudential Norms for Income Recognition and Asset Classification, which mandates that interest on NPAs shall be recognised only on a rece…

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4821/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2025
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. S.Jayaram, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43BSection 80G

…emphasized that these orders were\npassed after considering the decision in Southern Technologies Ltd. and\nof the Madras High Court in Sakthi Finance (supra). The ITAT order has\nalso referred to Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Vasisth Chay\nVyapar Ltd. [330 ITR 440], which has since been affirmed by\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar\nLtd. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 365 (SC).It is further stated that as\nper RBI Master Circular dated 01.07.2014, classification of advances is\ndone into various categories, including “Non-Performing Assets\", after\nconsidering the collateral security obtain…

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7865/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…l Commissioner of Income- tax, Range-12, [2017] 396 ITR 667 (Delhi) ("HUDCO") @ Page 9. @ Para 21.1 and @ Para 21.2. The Hon'ble High Court succinctly captured the legal position. The reference to Commissioner of Income- tax v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, [2011] 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) ("Vashisht Chai Vyapar (Delhi)") was noted in the right perspective which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasisth Chay Vyapar (SC) (supra). However, the Hon'ble High Court misdirected itself in equating the facts of the Assessee's case with the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) which was a…

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7629/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…l Commissioner of Income- tax, Range-12, [2017] 396 ITR 667 (Delhi) ("HUDCO") @ Page 9. @ Para 21.1 and @ Para 21.2. The Hon'ble High Court succinctly captured the legal position. The reference to Commissioner of Income- tax v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, [2011] 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) ("Vashisht Chai Vyapar (Delhi)") was noted in the right perspective which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasisth Chay Vyapar (SC) (supra). However, the Hon'ble High Court misdirected itself in equating the facts of the Assessee's case with the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) which was a…

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7628/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…l Commissioner of Income- tax, Range-12, [2017] 396 ITR 667 (Delhi) ("HUDCO") @ Page 9. @ Para 21.1 and @ Para 21.2. The Hon'ble High Court succinctly captured the legal position. The reference to Commissioner of Income- tax v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, [2011] 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) ("Vashisht Chai Vyapar (Delhi)") was noted in the right perspective which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasisth Chay Vyapar (SC) (supra). However, the Hon'ble High Court misdirected itself in equating the facts of the Assessee's case with the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) which was a…

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7626/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…l Commissioner of Income- tax, Range-12, [2017] 396 ITR 667 (Delhi) ("HUDCO") @ Page 9. @ Para 21.1 and @ Para 21.2. The Hon'ble High Court succinctly captured the legal position. The reference to Commissioner of Income- tax v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, [2011] 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) ("Vashisht Chai Vyapar (Delhi)") was noted in the right perspective which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasisth Chay Vyapar (SC) (supra). However, the Hon'ble High Court misdirected itself in equating the facts of the Assessee's case with the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) which was a…

MS RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,JALGAON vs. DCIT, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/PUN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Rajmal Lakhichand Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon – 425001 Pan: Aacfr8609L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

…ce it is a commercial transaction, it 9 cannot change the colour of the advance merely because the assessee did not charge any interest. 15. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 440 (Del), he submitted that since the assessee was not getting any interest from the Ashok Group of companies since inception of advancing the loan but offering the notional interest to tax, therefore, as a prudent businessman the assessee did not charge any interest for the impugned assessment year. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 802/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

…. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under:\n\"8. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the case of CIT ν.\nVasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 440/196 Taхтап 169/[2010] 8\ntaxmann.com 145 (Delhi). In this case, the Revenue relied upon the\ndecision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies\nLtd. (supra). The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has reproduced the\nobservations made by the Delhi High Court while referring the said case of\nSouthern Technologies Ltd.…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 801/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

…. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under:\n\"8. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the case of CIT ν.\nVasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 440/196 Taхтап 169/[2010] 8\ntaxmann.com 145 (Delhi). In this case, the Revenue relied upon the\ndecision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies\nLtd. (supra). The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has reproduced the\nobservations made by the Delhi High Court while referring the said case of\nSouthern Technologies Ltd.…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 800/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

…. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under:\n\"8. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the case of CIT ν.\nVasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 440/196 Taхтап 169/[2010] 8\ntaxmann.com 145 (Delhi). In this case, the Revenue relied upon the\ndecision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies\nLtd. (supra). The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has reproduced the\nobservations made by the Delhi High Court while referring the said case of\nSouthern Technologies Ltd.…

ACIT CIR 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2777/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaacb 1534 F V/S Acit, 2(1)(1), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1), Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400020. V/S Bank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra ……………. Respondent Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacb 1534 F

For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…count becoming NPA is not disputed by the revenue, the recognition of income is to be done only on receipt basis which is in consonance with the real income theory. In these circumstances and respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 330 ITR 440 and various other decisions refered to supra, we hold that the interest income on NPA accounts should not be assessed on mercantile basis and the same is to be taxed only on receipt basis. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed." We have also perused the provision of Sect. 43D of the Act which are reproduced as under: "43D. N…

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…t\nbecoming NPA is not disputed by the revenue, the recognition of income is to\nbe done only on receipt basis which is in consonance with the real income\ntheory. In these circumstances and respectfully following the decisions of\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in 330 ITR 440 and various other decisions refered\nto supra, we hold that the interest income on NPA accounts should not be\nassessed on mercantile basis and the same is to be taxed only on receipt\nbasis. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.\"\nWe have also perused the provision of Sect. 43D of the Act which are\nreproduced as under:\n…

EXCELRA KNOWLEDGE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 202/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.202/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy. Cit Solutions (P) Ltd, Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcg5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated10/02/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 438Section 43B

…ble for deduction u/s 10AA in respect of all the incomes earned by it. The quantum of deduction to be the income of the export oriented unit. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vasishta Chay Vyapar Ltd (330 ITR 440) (Del.) and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that a non-banking fiancé company is bound by the provisions of RBI Act, 1934 and 1998 directions under which it was mandatory on the part of the assessee not to recognize the interest on inter-corporate deposits as income having regard to the recognized accounting principles. Therefore,…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S HUDCO LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3904/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

…very same issue of taxability of interest income on accrual basis in respect of non performing assets was subject matter of consideration in yet another decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vashisht Chay Vyapar reported in 330 ITR 440 (Del) and the same was decided in favour of the assessee stating that the interest income is to be taxed only on receipt basis in respect of NPA. We find that this decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in 330 ITR 440 (Del) has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 410 ITR 244 (SC). Hence, we are in a situation where the i…

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3261/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

…very same issue of taxability of interest income on accrual basis in respect of non performing assets was subject matter of consideration in yet another decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vashisht Chay Vyapar reported in 330 ITR 440 (Del) and the same was decided in favour of the assessee stating that the interest income is to be taxed only on receipt basis in respect of NPA. We find that this decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in 330 ITR 440 (Del) has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 410 ITR 244 (SC). Hence, we are in a situation where the i…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

ITA 1533/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] (225 ITR 802). 8.5 The learned PCIT erred in not following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Vashist Chay Vyapar Ltd. [330 ITR 440] affirmed the Supreme Court in 301 CTR 263. 8.6 The learned PCIT erred in not accepting the Bank's argument that Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26 November 2008 was applicable to the Bank's case. 8.7 The learned PCIT erred in not appreciating that the amortizations of premium paid on securities in HTM category is in accordance with RBI guideline…

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7