Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT

283 ITR 84Supreme Court of India2006#8551 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 43dsection 42section 40(a)(ii)section 43csection 65section 45mercantile system of accountingreasoned ordersection 119section 40(a)section 145section 43b

Judgments citing Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT

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

…ntal authorities in\nview of the provisions of section 119 to ensure a uniform and proper\nadministration and application of the Income-tax Act.\"\n10. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in a case of\nMercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 84/153 Taxman 97 (SC), where\nsimilar question was raised before the apex court. The question was\nwhether the assessee is liable to be taxed under the Income-tax Act, 1961,\nin respect of the interest on doubtful advances credited to the interest\nsuspense account. In this case, UCO Bank's case (supra) was also referred\nand the hon'ble apex court h…

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

…ntal authorities in\nview of the provisions of section 119 to ensure a uniform and proper\nadministration and application of the Income-tax Act.\"\n10. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in a case of\nMercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 84/153 Taxman 97 (SC), where\nsimilar question was raised before the apex court. The question was whether the\nassessee is liable to be taxed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the\ninterest on doubtful advances credited to the interest suspense account. In this\ncase, UCO Bank's case (supra) was also referred and the hon'ble apex court ha…

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

…ntal authorities in\nview of the provisions of section 119 to ensure a uniform and proper\nadministration and application of the Income-tax Act.\"\n10. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in a case of\nMercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 84/153 Taxman 97 (SC), where\nsimilar question was raised before the apex court. The question was\nwhether the assessee is liable to be taxed under the Income-tax Act, 1961,\nin respect of the interest on doubtful advances credited to the interest\nsuspense account. In this case, UCO Bank's case (supra) was also referred\nand the hon'ble apex court h…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/82/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

…ensure a uniform and proper administration and application of the Income-tax Act.” 16. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2006) 283 ITR 84 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:- “7. Although the 1952 circular was withdrawn in June 1978 in view of the decision of the Kerala High Court to the contrary in State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 336, the principle was reintroduced by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by another Circular dated October 9, 1984. The 1984 Circ…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/83/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

…ensure a uniform and proper administration and application of the Income-tax Act.” 16. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2006) 283 ITR 84 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:- “7. Although the 1952 circular was withdrawn in June 1978 in view of the decision of the Kerala High Court to the contrary in State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 336, the principle was reintroduced by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by another Circular dated October 9, 1984. The 1984 Circ…

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSDZ0 CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9087/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhthe Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Vs Dy.Cit (Osd), Circle 2(2), Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Mumbai Colaba, Mumbai-400 001 Pan : Aaact3957G Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Shri Kanchun Kaushal & Aliasgar Rampurawala Ar’S Respondent By Shri Anand Mohan Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17-06-2019 Date Of Pronouncement 06-09-2019

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…was made on same facts, no funds was given in the year under consideration. For this proposition he relied upon the following judgements:- 1. UCO Bank Ltd and Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd (237 ITR 889)(SC) 2. Mercantile Bank Ltd vs CIT (283 ITR 84)(SC) 3. Godhra Electricity Company vs CIT (225 ITR 746 (SC) 4. CIT Vs Sridev Enterprises 192 ITR 165 (Kar) 39. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 40. We have considered the submissions of the ld. representatives of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The AO…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE MAHARAJA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 212/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst.Years :2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Income Tax, Urban Bank Ltd. Central Circle-1 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income Tax, 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Central Circle-1 Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 16Section 40

…ns of Income- tax Act and as per the circulars issued by CBDT from time to time as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of UCO Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889; State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT 158 ITR 102 and also in the case of Mercantile Bank Ltd Vs. CIT 283 ITR 84. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision or Delhi Special Bench in the case or New India Industries Lt 14 ITA Nos.211 & 212/Viz/2018 and CO Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 The Maharaja Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. Visakhapatnam Vs CLI 18 SOT 51 and jurisdictional Hyderabad Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Nagarjuna Investment Tr…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE MAHARAJA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst.Years :2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Income Tax, Urban Bank Ltd. Central Circle-1 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income Tax, 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Central Circle-1 Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 16Section 40

…ns of Income- tax Act and as per the circulars issued by CBDT from time to time as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of UCO Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889; State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT 158 ITR 102 and also in the case of Mercantile Bank Ltd Vs. CIT 283 ITR 84. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision or Delhi Special Bench in the case or New India Industries Lt 14 ITA Nos.211 & 212/Viz/2018 and CO Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 The Maharaja Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. Visakhapatnam Vs CLI 18 SOT 51 and jurisdictional Hyderabad Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Nagarjuna Investment Tr…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARAD SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

…thorities in view of the provisions of section 119 to ensure a uniform and proper administration and application of the Income-tax Act." 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in a case of Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2006] 283 ITR 84 (SC) ; [2006] 5 SCC 221, where similar question was raised before the apex court. The question was whether the assessee is liable to be taxed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the interest on doubtful advances credited to the interest suspense account. In this case, UCO Bank's case (supra) was also referred and the hon'ble apex court h…

TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

ITA 834/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43DSection 45Q

…thorities in view of the provisions of section 119 to ensure a uniform and proper administration and application of the Income-tax Act." 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in a case of Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2006] 283 ITR 84 (SC) ; [2006] 5 SCC 221, where similar question was raised before the apex court. The question was whether the assessee is liable to be taxed under the Income- tax Act, 1961, in respect of the interest on doubtful advances credited to the interest suspense account. In this case, UCO Bank's case (supra) was also referred and the hon'ble apex court…

TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

ITA 833/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43DSection 45Q

…thorities in view of the provisions of section 119 to ensure a uniform and proper administration and application of the Income-tax Act." 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in a case of Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2006] 283 ITR 84 (SC) ; [2006] 5 SCC 221, where similar question was raised before the apex court. The question was whether the assessee is liable to be taxed under the Income- tax Act, 1961, in respect of the interest on doubtful advances credited to the interest suspense account. In this case, UCO Bank's case (supra) was also referred and the hon'ble apex court…

TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

ITA 832/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43DSection 45Q

…thorities in view of the provisions of section 119 to ensure a uniform and proper administration and application of the Income-tax Act." 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in a case of Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2006] 283 ITR 84 (SC) ; [2006] 5 SCC 221, where similar question was raised before the apex court. The question was whether the assessee is liable to be taxed under the Income- tax Act, 1961, in respect of the interest on doubtful advances credited to the interest suspense account. In this case, UCO Bank's case (supra) was also referred and the hon'ble apex court…

COMMSSSR.OF INCOME TRX.RAJAHMUNDRY. vs. M/S.RAMA KRISHNA AND 2 OTHERS

ITTA/88/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

…uncertainty as to ultimate collection, revenue is recognised at the time of sale or rendering of service even though payments are made by instalments.” and following decisions:- (i) Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2006) 283 ITR 84 (SC) (ii) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parshwanath Housing Financing Corpn. Ltd., (2015) 57 Taxman..com 365 (Gujarat) (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax, W.B.-III, Calcutta Vs. United BanK of India, (2015) 229 Taxman 442 (Calcutta) (iv) ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 120 Taxman 245 (Calcutta) 5.…