Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

287 ITR 62High Court2006#2130 most cited

What is Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Dues from government bodies are not allowable as bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.

54

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

South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 287 ITR 62 · Section 36(1)(vii) · bad debts deduction · dues from government bodies · government body bad debt · allowability of bad debts · Madras High Court · bad debts government dues · 36(1)(vii) government dues

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40(a)(i)Section 92CA(3)Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)section 41(4)depreciation on softwaresection 2(42a)section 43(6)(c)section 9(i)(vii)non-compete feesection 43(6)section 36(1)(vii)section 41(1)management feesobjections before drp

Judgments citing Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

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

…ve to be written off in the books (e) Over the years a rigorous theory has evolved through a host of case laws for defining bad debts and allowing it as a deduction, For instance in South India Surgical Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2006], 287 ITR 62(Mad.), I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 it has been held that being merely pessimistic about the prospect of recovery of debt in question is not sufficient to claim that the debt became bad and is allowable as deduction. The judgment of the assessee should be an honest judgment and not a convenient judgment. This is a question o…

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

…ve to be written off in the books (e) Over the years a rigorous theory has evolved through a host of case laws for defining bad debts and allowing it as a deduction, For instance in South India Surgical Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2006], 287 ITR 62(Mad.), I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 it has been held that being merely pessimistic about the prospect of recovery of debt in question is not sufficient to claim that the debt became bad and is allowable as deduction. The judgment of the assessee should be an honest judgment and not a convenient judgment. This is a question o…

RAVI YANTRIKI UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD (5)(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1588/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 133(6)Section 194C

…High Court in the case of Oman\nInternational Bank (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court held as under :\n\n“12. Our attention was invited to the judgment of the Madras High Court in\nSouth India Surgical Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.\n(2006) 287 ITR 62 (Mad.). In case the amount was payable by a Government\nDepartment (Hospital). The Tribunal there had taken the view that the debt\ncould not be claimed as bad on the mere ground that the hospital and the\nDepartments might make payments as and when funds an provided. The\nMadras High Court after considering the various judgments was pleased to\no…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI vs. MS VA TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 2256/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, 'Wabag House” No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2256, 2257 & 2258/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Income Tax, 'Wabag House” Central Circle 3(2) No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Chennai. S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 2

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

…debts. The impugned amount was in respect of write off of an amount due from M/s. IOC Limited (Panipat Refinery) a government body. The Ld. AO relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of South India Surgical Company Limited, 287 ITR 62 and of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhall Enterprises and Engineers 295 ITR 481 held that dues from government bodies cannot be allowed as bad debts. 15.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that the controversy surrounding claim of bad debts is settled by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. TRF Limited…

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2248/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

…ts. The impugned amount was in respect of\nwrite off of an amount due from M/s. IOC Limited (Panipat Refinery) a\ngovernment body. The Ld. AO relying upon the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court in the case of South India Surgical Company\nLimited, 287 ITR 62 and of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhall\nEnterprises and Engineers 295 ITR 481 held that dues from government\nbodies cannot be allowed as bad debts.\n15.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that the controversy\nsurrounding claim of bad debts is settled by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble\nApex Court in the case of M/s. TRF Li…

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2247/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

…debts. The impugned amount was in respect of write off of an amount due from M/s. IOC Limited (Panipat Refinery) a government body. The Ld. AO relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of South India Surgical Company Limited, 287 ITR 62 and of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhall Enterprises and Engineers 295 ITR 481 held that dues from government bodies cannot be allowed as bad debts. 15.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that the controversy surrounding claim of bad debts is settled by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. TRF Limited…

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2246/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

…debts. The impugned amount was in respect of write off of an amount due from M/s. IOC Limited (Panipat Refinery) a government body. The Ld. AO relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of South India Surgical Company Limited, 287 ITR 62 and of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhall Enterprises and Engineers 295 ITR 481 held that dues from government bodies cannot be allowed as bad debts. 15.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that the controversy surrounding claim of bad debts is settled by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. TRF Limited…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. V A TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 147/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.147/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1182/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman, Sr.Advocate for Mr.T.Ramesh Kutty & B.SivaramanFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…debts. The impugned amount was in respect of write off of an amount due from M/s. IOC Limited (Panipat Refinery) a government body. The Ld. AO relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of South India Surgical Company Limited, 287 ITR 62 and of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhall Enterprises and Engineers 295 ITR 481 held that dues from government bodies cannot be allowed as bad debts. 15.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that the controversy surrounding claim of bad debts is settled by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. TRF Limited…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI vs. VA TECH WABAG PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 1182/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.147/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1182/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman, Sr.Advocate for Mr.T.Ramesh Kutty & B.SivaramanFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…debts. The impugned amount was in respect of write off of an amount due from M/s. IOC Limited (Panipat Refinery) a government body. The Ld. AO relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of South India Surgical Company Limited, 287 ITR 62 and of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhall Enterprises and Engineers 295 ITR 481 held that dues from government bodies cannot be allowed as bad debts. 15.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that the controversy surrounding claim of bad debts is settled by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. TRF Limited…

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.VA TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 326/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp) No.7/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.8/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.9/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.326/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V.A Tech Wabag Limited, Corporate Circle-3(2) No.17, Wabag House, Chennai 200 Feet Radial Road, Sunnambukolathur, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aabcv0225G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Kutty, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. C. Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Amitabh Shukla, A.M : Delay S. Appel- Appeal Nos. Ays Cit(A) Order Details Respondent In Filing No. Lant Appeal A B C D E F G Acit, Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / M/S. V.A Tech It(Tp)-7 / Cc- 2020-21 / 1029389607 (1) Wabag 1 2013-14 4 Days Chny/2021 3(2), Dt.31.12.2020 Limited, Chennai Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-8 / 2 2014-15 2020-21 / 1029389231 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-9 / 3 2015-16 2020-21 / 1029389414 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-326 3 4 2016-17 2020-21 / 1031510911 (1) /Chny/2021 Months Dt.16.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kutty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)

…debts. The impugned amount was in respect of write off of an amount due from M/s. IOC Limited (Panipat Refinery) a government body. The Ld. AO relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of South India Surgical Company Limited, 287 ITR 62 and of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhall Enterprises and Engineers 295 ITR 481 held that dues from government bodies cannot be allowed as bad debts. 15.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that the controversy surrounding claim of bad debts is settled by the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. TRF Limited…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1,LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 636/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

SUNDRAM FINANCE LOMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 81/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-A. LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 80/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

SUNDARAM FINANCE,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1, CHENNAI

ITA 79/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

ITA 9/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, , CHENNAI

ITA 8/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, , CHENNAI

ITA 7/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 28/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 27/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 26/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ransactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06.The Ld. CIT(A), following first appellate order for AY 2005- 06, decided this issue in assessee’s favor against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 19.2 We find t…

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (287 ITR 62) — Cited in 54 Judgments | BharatTax