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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Solapur District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Ltd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1419/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.1419/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 143(3)Section 43D

…s on this issue while giving relief to the assessee (Contents of Para Nos. 6 to 6.4 of the order of CIT(A) are relevant in this regard) : 1. CIT Vs. M/s. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. 128 DTR 0209 dated 11-01-2015 2. Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) 3. M/s. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) 4. CIT Vs. Sakthi Finance Ltd. 352 ITR 102 (Madras) 5. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) Revenue filed the present appeal raising the solitary issue referred above. 6. At the outset, narrating the above facts before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argues that provisions of section 43D…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Chatanya Godavari, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 327/VIZ/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N.Murthy, DR

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…rd assets is not against any debt which has become doubtful. Accordingly, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.47,93,922/- for the AY 2010-11 and Rs.69,37,085/- for the A.Y.2011-12. The AO relied on the decision in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT(SC) 320 ITR 577 and the decision rendered by ITAT, Chennai in the case of Bhart Overseas Bank Vs. CIT (139 ITD 154) and the Instruction No.17/2008 of CBDT dated 26.11.2008. 4 ITA Nos.326 &327/Viz/2016 and CO Nos.53&54-Viz-2016 M/s Chaitanya Godavari Grammena Bank, Guntur 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and furn…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Chatanya Godavari, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 326/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N.Murthy, DR

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…rd assets is not against any debt which has become doubtful. Accordingly, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.47,93,922/- for the AY 2010-11 and Rs.69,37,085/- for the A.Y.2011-12. The AO relied on the decision in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT(SC) 320 ITR 577 and the decision rendered by ITAT, Chennai in the case of Bhart Overseas Bank Vs. CIT (139 ITD 154) and the Instruction No.17/2008 of CBDT dated 26.11.2008. 4 ITA Nos.326 &327/Viz/2016 and CO Nos.53&54-Viz-2016 M/s Chaitanya Godavari Grammena Bank, Guntur 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and furn…

Hajee A P Bava & Company Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2153/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Hajee A.P.Bava & Company Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Hapbco Tower, #32, 9Th Main Road, Rpc Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560104. … Appellant Pan:Aacch1218C Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Cheriyan Baby, Ca. Respondent By : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr). Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bengaluru [Cit(A)] Dated 20/09/2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri Cheriyan Baby, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…is constitutes write off as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT (323 ITR 166). Page 3 of 4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR)/ relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT(320 ITR 577) in support of the proposition that provision for bad and doubtful debts is not allowable as deduction. 7. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The grounds of appeal in the present appeal relate to allowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts. The provisions of section 36(1)(vii) provide for deduction of bad debts,…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Anand Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 1299/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 145Section 43D

…mercantile system or cash system of accounting. The assessee cannot adopt mix system of accounting. The ld. DR further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 320 ITR 577 has held that the Reserve Bank of India directives under the Reserve Bank of India Act are prudential norms and have nothing to do with computation or taxability of the provisions of NPA under the Income Tax Act. The ld. DR further pointed that the assessee is a non-schedule Co-operative Bank, thus, the provisions of section 43D of RBI Act are no…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 865/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…es wherein after referring to circular Nos.18 of 2015 dated 02/11/2015 and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka bank vs. CIT (356 ITR 539) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology (320 ITR 577) and UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) it has been held as under: “9.5 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The short issue in this ground of appeal is whether fall in value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can Page 9 of 12 be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company. No…

Addl.C.I.T. RG.3(3), Mumbai vs. Aavaran Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5971/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Addl. Cit Range 3(3) Aavaram Textiles Pvt Ltd., Mumbai 81-A, Mittal Court, बनाम/ 224 Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 25

…assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in the accounts of the assessee. In support, reliance is placed on para 25 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. Joint CIT reported in 320 ITR 577 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 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 the assessee and crediting the amount to th…

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

…e respondent co-operative banks, as understood by section 43C of the Income-tax Act on the scheduled bank. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT reported in [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) ; [2010] 2 SCC 548. However, this judgment pertains to non-banking financial companies. UCO Bank's case (supra) and Mercantile Bank (supra) case squarely applies to the facts of the present case and issues involved. We, therefore, do not find it necessary to interfere in the judgment of the Appellant Tribunal. We hold that no substantial que…

Mediaedge Cia India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5299/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 115J

…rised Representative that the assessee has reduced the debt from the asset side of the Balance Sheet, meaning thereby, the amount in dispute has actually been reduced from the book debts. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Southern Technologies v/s JCIT, [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC), has held that if an assessee debits an amount of bad and doubtful debt to the Profit & Loss account and credits the asset side like sundry debtors account, it would constitute a write–off of an actual debt. Referring to the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank v/s CIT, [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC) held that if the assesse…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1335/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…are entrusted with the responsibility of executing the provisions of the Act. 9.6 The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889/104 Taxman 547 (SC) held that the directions of the RBI are only disclosed norms and they have nothing to do with computation of taxable income. The jurisdictional High Court further upheld the claim of the assessee- bank following the principle of consistency. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in t…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1265/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…are entrusted with the responsibility of executing the provisions of the Act. 9.6 The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889/104 Taxman 547 (SC) held that the directions of the RBI are only disclosed norms and they have nothing to do with computation of taxable income. The jurisdictional High Court further upheld the claim of the assessee- bank following the principle of consistency. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in t…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1397/BANG/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…are entrusted with the responsibility of executing the provisions of the Act. 9.6 The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889/104 Taxman 547 (SC) held that the directions of the RBI are only disclosed norms and they have nothing to do with computation of taxable income. The jurisdictional High Court further upheld the claim of the assessee- bank following the principle of consistency. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in t…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1396/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…are entrusted with the responsibility of executing the provisions of the Act. 9.6 The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889/104 Taxman 547 (SC) held that the directions of the RBI are only disclosed norms and they have nothing to do with computation of taxable income. The jurisdictional High Court further upheld the claim of the assessee- bank following the principle of consistency. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in t…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1335/BANG/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…are entrusted with the responsibility of executing the provisions of the Act. 9.6 The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889/104 Taxman 547 (SC) held that the directions of the RBI are only disclosed norms and they have nothing to do with computation of taxable income. The jurisdictional High Court further upheld the claim of the assessee- bank following the principle of consistency. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in t…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1334/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…are entrusted with the responsibility of executing the provisions of the Act. 9.6 The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889/104 Taxman 547 (SC) held that the directions of the RBI are only disclosed norms and they have nothing to do with computation of taxable income. The jurisdictional High Court further upheld the claim of the assessee- bank following the principle of consistency. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in t…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…are entrusted with the responsibility of executing the provisions of the Act. 9.6 The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889/104 Taxman 547 (SC) held that the directions of the RBI are only disclosed norms and they have nothing to do with computation of taxable income. The jurisdictional High Court further upheld the claim of the assessee- bank following the principle of consistency. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in t…

D.C.I.T. RG.3(3), Mumbai vs. Reliance Welfare Association, Mumbai

ITA 5976/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Reliance Welfare Tax Circle 3(3) Association Circle Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Maker Chambers Iv, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan:Aaacr6115N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 25

…assessee will not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt made in the accounts of the assessee. In support, reliance is placed on para 25 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. Joint CIT reported in 320 ITR 577 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 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 the assessee and crediting the amount to the…

The Asst. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. The Visakhapatnam Co -Operative Bank Limitd, Visakhapatnam

ITA 308/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jan 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. The Visakhapatnam Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Near Town Kotha Road, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 0844 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. The Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam. Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Near Town Kotha Road, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 0844 L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 58/Viz/2017 (Ita No. 308/Viz/2017) (Asst. Year : 2013-14) M/S. The Visakhapatnam Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Near Town Kotha Road, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 0844 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal–CIT-DR

Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)

…either in the year of acquisition or on deferred basis over the period of maturity. 11. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have further appreciated that CBDT instruction No. 17/2008 was issued prior to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd.(320 ITR 577), wherein it was held that the RBI guidelines or prudential norms issued by RBI are not intended to regulate Income Tax Laws. 12. The appellant craves leave to add or amend or alter or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal. 13. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, it is prayed…

The Visakhapatnam Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

ITA 176/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jan 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. The Visakhapatnam Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Near Town Kotha Road, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 0844 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. The Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam. Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Near Town Kotha Road, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 0844 L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 58/Viz/2017 (Ita No. 308/Viz/2017) (Asst. Year : 2013-14) M/S. The Visakhapatnam Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Near Town Kotha Road, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaaat 0844 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal–CIT-DR

Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)

…either in the year of acquisition or on deferred basis over the period of maturity. 11. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have further appreciated that CBDT instruction No. 17/2008 was issued prior to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd.(320 ITR 577), wherein it was held that the RBI guidelines or prudential norms issued by RBI are not intended to regulate Income Tax Laws. 12. The appellant craves leave to add or amend or alter or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal. 13. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, it is prayed…

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 915/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…rred in notfollowing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appellant bank’s own case. 2.6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd [2010] 320 ITR 577 the facts of which are totally different. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance ofRs. 232,01,21,818/- u/s 36(1)(viia). 3.1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant bank is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) to the extent of amount calcu…

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Solapur District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Ltd

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Chatanya Godavari, Guntur

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Chatanya Godavari, Guntur

Hajee A P Bava & Company Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Anand Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Pune

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

Addl.C.I.T. RG.3(3), Mumbai vs. Aavaran Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Mediaedge Cia India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 12(3)(2), Mumbai

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Mangalore

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

D.C.I.T. RG.3(3), Mumbai vs. Reliance Welfare Association, Mumbai

The Asst. CIT, Visakhapatnam vs. The Visakhapatnam Co -Operative Bank Limitd, Visakhapatnam

The Visakhapatnam Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Bangalore