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 367,154 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

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. The Hoshiarpur Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Hoshiarpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is disposed of accordingly

ITA 453/ASR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A No.453/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Cit, Vs. The Hoshiarpur Central Hoshiarpur Circle, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Hoshiarpur. Railway Road, Hoshiarpur.

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Kumar (CIT-D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

…booked in the assessee’s accounts in compliance with the RBI guidelines, even as the Act is a separate code in itself and income chargeable to tax under the Act is to be computed in accordance with its’ provisions (Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC)). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 The relevant part of the tribunal’s order supra reads as under: ‘Assessee’s Appeal (ITA No. 348/Asr/2011) 11. Ground 1 of the assessee’s appeal raises the (same) issue of denial of claim for fuel and hire charges. Our adjudication of ground 3 for AY 2007-08 (in ITA 47/A…

ACIT, Akola Circle, Akola vs. The Nandura Urban Co Op. Bank Ltd., Buldhana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 213/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Dr. Jayant M. Ranade a/wFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…at the issue of claim of provision of bad and doubtful debts on account of accrued interest on NPA was a debatable issue disregarding the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extinguished the debate in its decision in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. 320 ITR 577 which was much before the commencement of relevant assessment year. (iv) The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law in holding that the assessing officer has not found any infirmity in the information given in the return of income disregarding the fact that the assessing officer has given a clear finding that the deduction was claimed by the assessee…

M/S. Standard Chartered Grindlays Pty Limited, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 3459/DEL/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Shashi M, Kapila, P. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.K.Dhall, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274(2)(b)Section 36Section 4

…has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,68,73,947/- on account of erroneous interpretation of the provision of Sec. 36(i)(viia), which now stands clarified by the Supreme Court in case of Southern Technologies reported (320 ITR 577). 5. The order passed by Ld. CIT (A) for upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing officer is ex-facie bad in law as this is against the settled law that no penalty is imposable on additions made on debatable issues which is evident from the decisions 3 ITA No.3459/Del./2014 cited above on both issues. [CIT v. Jaswinder Singh Ahuja 351 IT…

DCIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Prathma Bank, Moradabad

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5273/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.DR
Section 32(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…of the average agricultural advances made by its rural branches. The said claim was disallowed by the AO. However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT 320 ITR 577 (supra) wherein it has been held as under: “Section 36(1)(viia) provides for a deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debt made by a scheduled bank or non-scheduled bank in relation to advances made by its rural branches, of a sum not exceeding a specified percentage of the aggregate average advances by such branches. Having r…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1899/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…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). 6.2.1 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee bank had written off the debts by debiting the same to the ‘ Bad Debts Written Off Account’ under the GL Code 180101, which is part of the profit and loss account and recoveries made in the written off account are credited to the profit and lo…

The Nashik Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1985/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1985/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Nashik Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., A-16, Administrative Building, Subhashchandra Bose Marg, Industrial Estate, Satpur, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422007 …. Pan: Aaaat3324K Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)Section 80P(2)(a)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1985/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Nashik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd., A-16, Administrative Building, Subhashchandra Bose Marg, Industrial Estate, Satpur, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422007 …. PAN: AAAAT3324K Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Pr…

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, ( International Taxation) Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 43D

…ve changed and RBI now follows the international norm of classification (viz./ standard, sub-standard, doubtful and loss assets). The ld AO relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs CIT reported in (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). The assessee stated that the said decision is distinguishable from the facts of the assessee bank in as much as the same pertained to claim of deduction in respect of ‘Provision for NPA’ in the hands of a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act which is available only to banks. Even the said decision did not contempl…

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, ( International Taxation) Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1885/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 43D

…ve changed and RBI now follows the international norm of classification (viz./ standard, sub-standard, doubtful and loss assets). The ld AO relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs CIT reported in (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). The assessee stated that the said decision is distinguishable from the facts of the assessee bank in as much as the same pertained to claim of deduction in respect of ‘Provision for NPA’ in the hands of a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act which is available only to banks. Even the said decision did not contempl…

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, (It) - 2(1), Kolkata

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43D

…ve changed and RBI now follows the international norm of classification (viz./ standard, sub-standard, doubtful and loss assets). The ld AO relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs CIT reported in (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). The assessee stated that the said decision is distinguishable from the facts of the assessee bank in as much as the same pertained to claim of deduction in respect of ‘Provision for NPA’ in the hands of a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act which is available only to banks. Even the said decision did not contempl…

DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 503/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43D

…ve changed and RBI now follows the international norm of classification (viz./ standard, sub-standard, doubtful and loss assets). The ld AO relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs CIT reported in (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). The assessee stated that the said decision is distinguishable from the facts of the assessee bank in as much as the same pertained to claim of deduction in respect of ‘Provision for NPA’ in the hands of a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act which is available only to banks. Even the said decision did not contempl…

Nexgenix (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 5242/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shr666666I N.K Pradhanm/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/S. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit No.149, Sdf–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 Pan – Aabcn3687N V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri R.C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHR666666I N.K PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit no.149, SDF–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 PAN – AABCN3687N v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/s. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit no.149, SDF–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 096 PAN – AABCN3687N v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–8(2), Mumbai M/s. Nexgenix (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit no.149, SDF–V, Seepz ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumba…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Share Microfin Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1285/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Share Microfin Ltd., Circle – 3(1) Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaecs9243C (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P.V Subbaraju Assessee By : Shri A.G. Sitaraman

For Appellant: Shri A.G. SitaramanFor Respondent: Shri P.V Subbaraju
Section 143(3)

…ody's case that the assessee has actually received the interest income. The prudential norms of RBI or NBFCs have laid down that income from NPAs may not be recognised on accrual basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT (320 ITR 577) held that income recognition with regard to NPAs should be as per section 45Q of the RBI Act. Following the 7 ITA.No. 1285/Hyd/2015 Share Microfin Ltd., Hyderabad. aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., and another (330 ITR 440) held that where even the principal am…

Darshan Roadlines P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 186/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.186/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Darshan Roadlines Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income Tax-6(2)(1) 301, Commercial Manor 4Th Cross Clive Road, Masjid (E) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-8064-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Sunil Natha, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…e "Loans and Advances Account" or Debtors to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt is sufficient? 6. The first question is no more res integra. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010 320 ITR 577], [in which one of us (S.H. Kapadia, J.) was a party] had an occasion to deal with the first question and it has been answered, accordingly, in favour of the assessee vide Paragraph (25), which reads as under : "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 i…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sharad Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Solapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1240/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 145Section 260ASection 43D

…accounting. Thus, on this count itself the learned CIT(A) should have upheld the addition made by the AO on account of interest on NP A. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Limited Vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) had held that the RBI directions under RBI Act are prudential norms but have nothing to do with computation of taxability of provisions of NP A under the I.T.Act, 1961. Even though the RBI directions deviate from the accounting practice as provided by the Companies Act, they do not override the provisions of I.T. Act, 1961. RBI directions an…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) (para 4) CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 416 (Bom) (para 7) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) (para 4)Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) (para 2)Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) (para 2)Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) (para 4). 2.5. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT )2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) held as under:- “This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) (para 4) CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 416 (Bom) (para 7) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) (para 4)Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) (para 2)Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) (para 2)Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) (para 4). 2.5. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT )2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) held as under:- “This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) (para 4) CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 416 (Bom) (para 7) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) (para 4)Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) (para 2)Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) (para 2)Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) (para 4). 2.5. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT )2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) held as under:- “This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) (para 4) CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 416 (Bom) (para 7) East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC) (para 4)Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) (para 2)Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) (para 2)Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Cal) (para 4). 2.5. Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT )2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) held as under:- “This petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Indrayani Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1000/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma
Section 145Section 43DSection 5

…account of accrued interest on Non-Performing assets? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in disregarding the judgement of hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. VS JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) which says that provisions of RBI Act cannot override the provision of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, since both the Acts operate in different fields and therefore assessee cannot recognize interest income on NPA and yet not offer it for taxation? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justifi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Pandharpur Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Solapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1421/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1421/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 43D

…ground relating to interest accrued on NPA amounting to Rs.67,84,906/-. While doing so, he explained the provisions of section 43D of the Act and relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT (Coimbatore) 320 ITR 577 (SC), judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) and the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Yrs. 2009-10 and 2010-11 vide ITA Nos. 875/PN/2014 & C.O.No.100/PN/2014, dated 28-11-2014. Eventually, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee in his favour. On pe…