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).

How many judgments cite Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT?

353 judgments on BharatTax cite Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT (320 ITR 577), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(vii), Section 14A, Section 1961, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 143(3).

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT (320 ITR 577)

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/98/2010HC Karnataka23 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115JSection 14ASection 260Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 43D

…d counsel for the revenue submitted that the Reserve Bank of India guidelines do not override the provision of the Act. In support of aforesaid submission, reference has been made to decision of Supreme Court in ‘SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’, JT. CIT 2010 320 ITR 577. It is also submitted that the income by an assessee cannot be altered with reference to Section 43D of the Act and there is no express finding recorded by the tribunal that the debt in question is a bad debt. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revenue has invited our attention to para Nos.31 & 33 to the decision in the…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 948/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…e accounts of the assessee for the previous year. 91. A number of cases decided by the Hon'ble High Courts and also by the Apex Court are cited / referred to in the above judgement. Cases of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (323 ITR 166) and Southern Technologies Vs JCIT (320 ITR 577) are referred to therein. Accounting standard AS29 and also the effect of Board's Circular's have also been discussed at length in the order along with the subject :-4-: ITA Nos.948 & 777/Chny/2018 of interpretation and construction of the relevant sections. Thus, the judgement is a comprehensive one which has considered the ratios laid down by…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 777/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…e accounts of the assessee for the previous year. 91. A number of cases decided by the Hon'ble High Courts and also by the Apex Court are cited / referred to in the above judgement. Cases of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (323 ITR 166) and Southern Technologies Vs JCIT (320 ITR 577) are referred to therein. Accounting standard AS29 and also the effect of Board's Circular's have also been discussed at length in the order along with the subject :-4-: ITA Nos.948 & 777/Chny/2018 of interpretation and construction of the relevant sections. Thus, the judgement is a comprehensive one which has considered the ratios laid down by…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ing. Vysya Bank Limited

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/18/2014HC Karnataka16 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 114JSection 260Section 37(1)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI I.T.A.No. 18/2014 C/W I.T.A. Nos.229/2009, 21/2012 & 35/2014 I.T.A.No.18/2014 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(3), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED ING VYSYA HOUSE No.22, M.G. ROAD BANGA…

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 2003/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rovision for non performing assets (NPA) as per the Prudential Norms of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The said provision has been claimed as deduction in computing the total income. The 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…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1821/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah & Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…rovision for non performing assets (NPA) as per the Prudential Norms of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The said provision has been claimed as deduction in computing the total income. The 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…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1937/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

…ides that in respect of rural advances, the deduction on account of the actual write off of bad debts would be limited to excess of the amount written off over the amount of the provision which had already been allowed u/s 36(1) (viia) (Southern Technologies 320 ITR 577 (SC) & Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166 (SC) referred) 10. In the instant case, we endorse the decision of Ld.CIT(A) which held that the assessee has admitted in its submissions as well as before AO regarding the entitlement of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs. 114.76 crores. There is no dispute as to the correctness of the calculation of the entitlemen…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5845/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…62 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “9. In the present case, we find that the facts and issues that are covered by the aforesaid judgment squarely apply to the facts and issues raised in the present Appeal. Not only are we in full agreement with the judgment of this Court in the case of Bank of Baroda (supra) but we are bound by the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5846/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…62 ITR 334 and a decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 377 considering decision of honourable supreme court in case of united commercial bank V CIT 240 ITR 355 and Southern technologies Limited V Jt CIT 320 ITR 577, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “9. In the present case, we find that the facts and issues that are covered by the aforesaid judgment squarely apply to the facts and issues raised in the present Appeal. Not only are we in full agreement with the judgment of this Court in the case of Bank of Baroda (supra) but we are bound by the…

Adarniya P.D. Patilsaheb Sahakari Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 801/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.801/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Adarniya P.D. Patilsaheb Sahakari Bank Ltd., 15/3/C, Mangalwar Peth, Tilak Road, Karad, Satara-415110. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaajs0147E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Satara Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Satara. Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Pune Dated 23.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Sustaining The Addition Made By The A. O. Of Rs. 4,40,000/- On Account Of Rejection Of Claim Of Deduction Of Provision For Depreciation On Standard Assets (Bddr). Such Provisions Are Being Annually Made As Per Mandatory Directions Of The Reserve Bank Of India Issued Under S. 45E? Of The Rbi Act, 1934. The Direction Are For To Compensate The Sudden Erosion Of The Assets Of The Bank With A View To Improve The Financial Health Of The Banks. The Claim Be Allowed To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 36(1)(viia)

…fficer disallowed the same on the ground that it was only a contingent liability which cannot be allowed. The CIT(A) also sustained the disallowance following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT, (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). 4. On hearing both the sides, we find it is undisputed fact that the impugned claim is disallowable “Contingent Provision” made on the basis of a percentage on the value of standard assets. The Provision does not reflect any particular debt which is doubtful or bad and it is only a general and non-specific Provision and it has been rightly…

Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1226/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…cer, there is a specific provision of section 36 for allowing advances written off and therefore, same cannot be allowed under section 37 of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC), wherein it is held that if a provision for doubtful debt is expressly excluded from section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, then such provision cannot be claimed as deduction under section 37, even on the basis of ‘real income theory’. 5.3 Regarding the claim of deposits written off of ₹ 2,86,057/- the submission of the assessee has been reproduced…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1276/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…cer, there is a specific provision of section 36 for allowing advances written off and therefore, same cannot be allowed under section 37 of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC), wherein it is held that if a provision for doubtful debt is expressly excluded from section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, then such provision cannot be claimed as deduction under section 37, even on the basis of ‘real income theory’. 5.3 Regarding the claim of deposits written off of ₹ 2,86,057/- the submission of the assessee has been reproduced…

The Graduates Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mysore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1823/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Graduates’ Co- The Additional Operative Bank Ltd., Commissioner Of # K-9, 473/1, Chamaraja Vs. Income-Tax, Double Road, Range – 2, Mysore. Mysore. Pan: Aaaat8676L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 194A(3)Section 234Section 36(1)Section 37

…u/s 36(1) (viia) after considering the provisions made by the assessee. 20. Before us, learned DR has submitted that provision for doubtful debts is not an allowable claim as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT (320 ITR 577). 21. On the other hand, learned AR has submitted that the AO has not considered the claim of assessee u/s 36(1) (viia) and therefore, this ground of the revenue's appeal is not arising from the order of the CIT(A). 22. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, we find that the AO disallowed this claim of…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1316/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1129 & 1130/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13 and 2014-15. M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Office, Income Tax, 149, TSR Big Street, Circle I, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1315& 1316/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13 and 2014-15. The Assistant Co…

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1315/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1129 & 1130/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13 and 2014-15. M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Office, Income Tax, 149, TSR Big Street, Circle I, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1315& 1316/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13 and 2014-15. The Assistant Co…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1130/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1129 & 1130/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13 and 2014-15. M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Office, Income Tax, 149, TSR Big Street, Circle I, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1315& 1316/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13 and 2014-15. The Assistant Co…

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1129/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1129 & 1130/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13 and 2014-15. M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Office, Income Tax, 149, TSR Big Street, Circle I, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1315& 1316/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2012-13 and 2014-15. The Assistant Co…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 12, Pune vs. Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 43DSection 45QSection 5Section 56

…not be included to the total income of the assessee. To the query of AO assessee made submissions which were not found acceptable to the AO. AO thereafter following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs JCIT reported in 320 ITR 577 held that interest accrued on NPAs amounting to Rs.1,62,90,000/- should be 3 added to the income of the assessee and accordingly made its addition. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) who after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., r…

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 635/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

…0,00,098/-. The same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed deduction to the assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported as 320 ITR 577. We find that this issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. The relevant extract of the findings of Tribunal in ITA No. 1370/PUN/2014 (supra) are as under : “3.3 Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. In ground No. 1 of appeal the assessee has assailed the findings of Co…

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 634/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

…0,00,098/-. The same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed deduction to the assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported as 320 ITR 577. We find that this issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. The relevant extract of the findings of Tribunal in ITA No. 1370/PUN/2014 (supra) are as under : “3.3 Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below perused. In ground No. 1 of appeal the assessee has assailed the findings of Co…

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ing. Vysya Bank Limited

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

Adarniya P.D. Patilsaheb Sahakari Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The Graduates Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mysore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Mysore

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam vs. ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 12, Pune vs. Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune