Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT

320 ITR 577Supreme Court of India2010#216 most cited

What is Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

353

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT · Section 36 deduction · provision for bad and doubtful debts · Section 36(1)(viia) · Section 36(1)(vii) · allowability of provision · MAT section 115JB · non-performing assets · profits and gains of business or profession · bad debt deduction conditions · Income Tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 14ASection 1961Section 115JBSection 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 10(34)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)section 36(1)(viii)section 115jb(2)section 10(34)additional depreciationsection 41section 36(1)profits and gains of business or profession

Judgments citing Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT

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

…he assessee can’t say that valuation of securities shall be done as per RBI guidelines but recognition of income or loss will be done individual scrip wise. The issue before the Hon’ble SC in UCO Bank 240 ITR 355 (Supreme Court) and Southern Technologies Ltd. 320 ITR 577 (Supreme Court) was not exactly the same as discussed aforesaid. Therefore stand of the AO that depreciation / appreciation in individual scrips shall be aggregated for each category of classification and thereafter only net depreciation shall be allowed in the P&L A/c as per the RBI guidelines on valuation of securities and recognition of income…

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

…he assessee can’t say that valuation of securities shall be done as per RBI guidelines but recognition of income or loss will be done individual scrip wise. The issue before the Hon’ble SC in UCO Bank 240 ITR 355 (Supreme Court) and Southern Technologies Ltd. 320 ITR 577 (Supreme Court) was not exactly the same as discussed aforesaid. Therefore stand of the AO that depreciation / appreciation in individual scrips shall be aggregated for each category of classification and thereafter only net depreciation shall be allowed in the P&L A/c as per the RBI guidelines on valuation of securities and recognition of income…

The Dakshin Dinajpur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Balurghat vs. DCIT, Circle 3, Malda

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2187/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

…f Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs CIT (2012)343 ITR 270(SC). We note that the decision relied by the ld. AO in case of Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore [2010] 187 Taxman 346 (SC)/[2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC)/[2010] 228 CTR 440 (SC)[11-01-2010] ITA Nos. 2187 to 2189/KOL/2025 The Dakshin Dinajpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 is not applicable to the assessee as the decision was rendered in the context of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, where the assessee is a co- operative bank and therefore, the Section 36(1)(viia…

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5417/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…’s claim, but the High Court reversed the order of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. On appeal by the assessee, Hon’ble 8 Apex Court, while reversing the order of the High Court and referring to its earlier ruling in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT: 320 ITR 577 held that the credit entry in each and every individual debtor’s account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee deb…

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

ITA 5416/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…’s claim, but the High Court reversed the order of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. On appeal by the assessee, Hon’ble 8 Apex Court, while reversing the order of the High Court and referring to its earlier ruling in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT: 320 ITR 577 held that the credit entry in each and every individual debtor’s account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee deb…

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3158/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…’s claim, but the High Court reversed the order of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. On appeal by the assessee, Hon’ble 8 Apex Court, while reversing the order of the High Court and referring to its earlier ruling in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT: 320 ITR 577 held that the credit entry in each and every individual debtor’s account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee deb…

ACIT Circle 1, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., Dalmiapuram

ITA 3157/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…’s claim, but the High Court reversed the order of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. On appeal by the assessee, Hon’ble 8 Apex Court, while reversing the order of the High Court and referring to its earlier ruling in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT: 320 ITR 577 held that the credit entry in each and every individual debtor’s account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee deb…

Elcome Technologies Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6188/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr.-DR
Section 250Section 250(4)Section 37Section 41(1)

…. The apex Court also referred to the decision of in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 2012 SC 1538/[2012] 18 taxmann.com 282/206 Taxman 182/343 ITR 270 (SC) and Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 187 Taxman 346/320 ITR 577 (SC) and by referring to the said decisions it was observed in Paragraph 18 as follows: " 18. It is evident from the above rulings of this court, that: (i) The amount of any bad debt or part thereof has to be written-off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year; (ii) Such bad debt or part of it written-off as irrecov…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur vs. The Csb Bank Ltd, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 250

…fter 1.41989 however, a mere provision for bad debt would not be entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. In context of such statutory change, the Supreme Court referred to the decision in case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346, in which the following observations were made: "Prior to April, 1, 1989, the law, as it then stood, took the view that even in cases in which the assessee(s) makes only a provision in its accounts for bad debts and interest thereon and even though the amount is not actually written off by debiting the profit and loss account of th…

Sri Jahar Matilal vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-Xviii & Anr

The appeal is allowed

ITA/32/2015HC Calcutta13 Aug 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 13Th August, 2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 44A

…ere reduction in the “loans and advances account” or debtors to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt is sufficient. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of an earlier decision in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. Joint CIT, (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC) . In the said decision (Southern Technologies Ltd.) it was held that, to understand the above dichotomy brought in by way of Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), one must understand as to `how to write off’. If an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the asset account like sundry debtor’s ac…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), Delhi vs. Unison Hotels Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4471/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Unison Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Cirlce-25(1), Plot No.2, Nelson Mandela Road, Delhi Vasant Kunj, Phase-2Nd, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacu0455C Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr.Adv., Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Akash Shukla, Adv. Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10712/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Is Running Hotels. The Return Of Income Was E-Filed On 29.11.2014, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,21,35,196/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act On 01.09.2015. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time & Submissions Were Taken From The Assessee & Finally, The Assessment Was Completed At An Income Of Inr 30,38,83,394/- By Making Various Additions/Disallowances.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)

…lied upon the decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC). In the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC), placing reliance on the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that after 1.1.1989, a mere provision for bad debt will not be entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). If an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the assets account like sundry debtors account that would constitute a write off of an actual debt. The app…

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. S.Jayaram, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 32Section 43BSection 80G

…he AO disallowed the claim stating that while RBI guidelines permit recognition of interest on NPAs on a cash basis for accounting purposes, taxable income must be computed under the Act. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Southern Technologies Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 577, and the Madras High Court ruling in the case of CIT v. Sakthi Finance Ltd. (352 ITR 102),he held that RBI norms cannot override tax provisions. Since the loans were still reflected as assets and no details were provided regarding recovery or collateral, the interest income on such NPAs, not accrued by the assessee in its books of account, was he…

ACIT Circle, 3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union बनाम Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ith respect to the diminution in value of investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI Guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. CIT (320 ITR 575)?" has held that "7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1079 of 2012, CIT-2 υ. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar fairly stated that question (C)…

ACIT, Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ith respect to the diminution in value of investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI Guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. CIT (320 ITR 575)" has held that "7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1079 of 2012, CIT-2 v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar fairly stated that question (C)…

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ith respect to the diminution in value of investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI Guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. CIT (320 ITR 575)?" has held that "7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1079 of 2012, CIT-2 v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar fairly stated that question (C)…

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2037/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, बनाम | Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ith respect to the diminution in value of investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI Guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. CIT (320 ITR 575)?" has held that "7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1079 of 2012, CIT-2 υ. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar fairly stated that question (C)…

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

…rabhai vs. CIT [1977] 94 Taxman164 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Narasiman (1999) 236 ITR 327 (SC) (iii) PCIT vs. Juptiter Capital (P.) Ltd. [1981] 170 taxmann.com 305 (SC) (iv) Vazir Sultan Tobacoo Co. Ltd. [1981] 7 Taxman 28 (SC) (v) Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) (vi) Vijaya Bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166 (SC) (vii) PCIT vs. Torrent (P.) Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 375 (Guj) (viii) CIT vs. Vodafone Esar Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 32 (Guj) (ix) CIT vs. Binani Cement Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 281 (Cal) (x) Jubilant Energy (P) Lt. vs. DCIT (3927/Del/2016 (Delhi – Trib.) (xi) Khan Bahadur Ahmed A…

Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Rajkot vs. Assistat Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

…assessee`s books of accounts, it has never any tax effect on that. It is only accounting entries, as per RBI reporting and disclosure requirements. 11 Saurashtra Gramin Bank The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT (320 ITR 577- SC) has held that “Provision for NPA” made in terms of the RBI directions does not constitute expense for purposes of section 36(1)(vii) and thus the same is not allowable. Further, the Supreme Court has also ruled that deduction can also not be claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, provision for N…

Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank ), Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incometax Circle -2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1654/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…the individual debts are squared off, the entries in the books of account cannot be accepted as reliable. In coming to this finding the learned CIT (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Limited (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). 5.2.1 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee bank has written off the debts by debiting the same to the 'Bad Debts Written Off Account' under the GL Code 163301 which is part of the profit and loss account and recoveries made in written off accounts are credited to the profit and loss ac…

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)

…ght 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 case of 'deduction on account of provision under section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") and not the recognition of interest income on the NPA. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to go through these two cases which are the core of the present case. 4. Issue in the case of Southern Technologies Let us first exam…