Power Finance Corporation Limited v. JCIT

16 DTR 519High Court2008#19350 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing Power Finance Corporation Limited v. JCIT

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

…efore claiming the said deduction. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out that identical issue had been dealt with by the Delhi Bench of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Power Finance Corporation Limited Vs. JCIT (2008) 16 DTR 519(Del) which was followed by the Mumbai Bench of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Addl.CIT in ITA No.4619/M/2012 dated 4.11.2015. Copies of the order were placed before us. The Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out therefrom that it was held by the Tribunal in the said cases that the reserve created in subsequent years, however, before…

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)

…re claiming the said deduction. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out that identical issue had been dealt with by the Delhi Bench of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Power Finance Corporation Limited Vs. JCIT (2008) 16 DTR 519(Del) which was followed by the Mumbai Bench of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Addl.CIT in ITA No.4619/M/2012 dated 4.11.2015. Copies of the order were placed before us. The Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out therefrom that it was held by the Tribunal in the said cases that the reserve created in subsequent years, however, bef…

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)

…re claiming the said deduction. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out that identical issue had been dealt with by the Delhi Bench of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Power Finance Corporation Limited Vs. JCIT (2008) 16 DTR 519(Del) which was followed by the Mumbai Bench of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Addl.CIT in ITA No.4619/M/2012 dated 4.11.2015. Copies of the order were placed before us. The Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out therefrom that it was held by the Tribunal in the said cases that the reserve created in subsequent years, however, bef…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Corporation Bank, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1264/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

…ent year. Therefore, according to him, assessee was eligible for Rs.141.21 Crores, in the impugned assessment year itself. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Power Finance Corpn.Ltd (PFCL) Vs JCIT(2008) 16 DTR 519. According to him, it was held by the Delhi Bench that reading of Section 36(1)(viii) did not put any time limit for creation of any special reserves so as to claim a deduction under that section. 18. Per contra, learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 19. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Section 3…

Power Finance Corporation Limited v. JCIT (16 DTR 519) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax