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 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. The Nawanshahr Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Nawanshahr

ITA 61/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 61/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Aaaat4125G The Dy. C. I. T. Vs. The Nawanshahr Central Co-Op. Circle-Ii, Jalandhar. Bank Ltd. Nawanshahr, Distt. Doaba. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kanwal (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)

Section 36

…Income Tax Act, 1961. 18. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT-5 Vs. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.531 of 2015 dated 5.8.2016 ,relying upon the decision of the apex court in Southern Technologies Limited vs JCIT, Coimbatore,(2010) 320 ITR 577,held that so far as Income Recognition was concerned even the AO had to follow the RBI Directions,1998 in view of section 45Q of the RBI Act and section 145 of the Income Tax Act had no role to play in the same. The Hon’ble Court held at para 20 to 23 of its order as follows: “20. Section 45Q finds place in Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act. Thus, the…

DCIT, Davangere vs. M/S Hiriyur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Harihara

In the result, the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 776/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep, CA

Section 119

…in coming to the conclusion that the assessee can follow missed system of accounting. Page 2 of 4 4. The CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate the rationale of decision in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Southern Technologies Ltd., VS. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577. RBI Guidelines are only prudential norms and cannot overrule income recognition as per Income-tax Act. 5. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the app…

ACIT -2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 3082/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एल मुंबई एल एल” ” ” ” खंडपीठ एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No. 3082/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 वष" DCIT2(1) Bank of India 8th Floor, Star House, Taxation Deptt. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai. BKC-Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. PAN: AAACB 0472 C (अपीलाथ" /Appella…

The Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Balasore vs. JCIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 417/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 2(9)Section 263Section 80Section 80P(4)

…rd assets and NPA debited in P & L A/c. has been credited to current liabilities and provision on the liability side of the Balance Sheet. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT, [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) and M/s.Vijaya Bank v. CIT. 323 ITR 166 (SC) and in view of the ratio laid down in the above judgments, he added back Rs.2,45,59,609.13 to the income of the assessee. 17. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that without proper verification of the assessee’s written submission filed during the course of assessment proceeding and als…

DCIT, Tirunelveli vs. Tirunelveli District Central Coop Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli

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

ITA 1177/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1177/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Tirunelveli District Central Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli [Pan:Aaaat7955J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Asish Tripathi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Maruthappan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Madurai Dated 14.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of ₹.38,67,983/- Made Under Section 36(1)(Viia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri C. Maruthappan, C.A

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

…and, is a charge against profit, based on a realistic estimate (by the Management) of the risk of non-realization of the debt/s, to that extent and, thus, identifiable with reference to specific debts. As explained in Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC), even a provision for NPAs (as classified under the RBI Prudential norms), will not by itself qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) or section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. NPAs is a broader category of classification as per the RBI norms, and includes assets (debts) which are not doubtful for recovery, viz. sub-standard assets. In fact,…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 931/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)

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

…addition by holding that it is only a provision made for NPA account in the books of account. He further held that the assessee-bank had not complied with the conditions stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs. Joint CIT (320 ITR 577). 7.2 We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The conditions which are required to be complied with for allowance of bad debt are that the amount of bad debt should have formed part of income in earlier years and it should have been written off in the books of account. The contention of the CIT(A) is that the provision for bad…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1493/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)

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

…addition by holding that it is only a provision made for NPA account in the books of account. He further held that the assessee-bank had not complied with the conditions stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs. Joint CIT (320 ITR 577). 7.2 We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The conditions which are required to be complied with for allowance of bad debt are that the amount of bad debt should have formed part of income in earlier years and it should have been written off in the books of account. The contention of the CIT(A) is that the provision for bad…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

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

ITA 1440/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)

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

…addition by holding that it is only a provision made for NPA account in the books of account. He further held that the assessee-bank had not complied with the conditions stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs. Joint CIT (320 ITR 577). 7.2 We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The conditions which are required to be complied with for allowance of bad debt are that the amount of bad debt should have formed part of income in earlier years and it should have been written off in the books of account. The contention of the CIT(A) is that the provision for bad…

Canara Bank vs. Addl.C.I, .T

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

ITA 979/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)

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

…addition by holding that it is only a provision made for NPA account in the books of account. He further held that the assessee-bank had not complied with the conditions stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs. Joint CIT (320 ITR 577). 7.2 We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The conditions which are required to be complied with for allowance of bad debt are that the amount of bad debt should have formed part of income in earlier years and it should have been written off in the books of account. The contention of the CIT(A) is that the provision for bad…

J.C.I.T vs. M/S Canara Bank

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

ITA 1035/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)

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

…addition by holding that it is only a provision made for NPA account in the books of account. He further held that the assessee-bank had not complied with the conditions stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs. Joint CIT (320 ITR 577). 7.2 We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The conditions which are required to be complied with for allowance of bad debt are that the amount of bad debt should have formed part of income in earlier years and it should have been written off in the books of account. The contention of the CIT(A) is that the provision for bad…

Baitarani Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 318/CTK/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

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

…nce sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt. In the latter case, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction after April, 1989. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs JCIT, 320 ITR 577 (SC), wherein also, similar finding was given. Hence, it was his submission that the order of the CIT should be confirmed. 11. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the undisputed facts are that the assessee made a claim for deduction of Rs.1,68,13,0…

ACIT, Balasore vs. M/S. the Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Balasore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan BiswalFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan DR

Section 35ASection 36(1)(vii)

…the Act, bad debt actually written off from the books of assessee is admissible for deduction. But the provision made for standard asset is not deductible in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd vs JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer is unlawful in disallowing provision for standard asset which has been credited in the books as per the mandatory guidelines of RBI for the assessee bank and qualifies as a part of provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee further submitted that in the case…

M/S. the Mayurbhanj Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 387/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Ambica Prasad Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 35ASection 36(1)(vii)

…he Act, bad debt actually written off from the books of assessee is admissible for deduction. But the provision made for standard asset is not deductible in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd vs JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer is unlawful in disallowing provision for standard asset which has been credited in the books as per the mandatory guidelines of SBI for the assessee bank and qualifies as a part of provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee further submitted that in its own c…

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

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4090/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4090/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Prathma Bank, Tax, Circle-1, Ramganga Vihar, Moradabad Moradabad (U.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.04.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Bareilly.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

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

…n is now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009- 10 reported at (2016) 52 ITR(Trib.) 454 (Del.). The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Southern Technologies Vs JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) " Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs CIT 343 ITR 270 (SC) " South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs CIT 262 ITR 579 (Ker.) " Syndicate Bank Vs DCIT 78 ITD 103 (ITAT) " Prathma Bank Vs CIT (2016) 52 ITR (Trib.) 454 20. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, the…

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12

ITA/440/2016HC Delhi03 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 30ASection 43DSection 6E

…o Rule 6EB in the sense that every amendment or modification in the NHB guidelines has to ipso facto be read into Rule 6EB. 20. This conclusion also draws support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) which held that the RBI Act does not override the provisions of the Act. The Court reconciled the said judgment with the decision in TRO v. Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 [2007] 293 ITR 369 (SC) which held that where an Act makes a provision with a non-obst…

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12

ITA/444/2016HC Delhi03 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 30ASection 43DSection 6E

…o Rule 6EB in the sense that every amendment or modification in the NHB guidelines has to ipso facto be read into Rule 6EB. 20. This conclusion also draws support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) which held that the RBI Act does not override the provisions of the Act. The Court reconciled the said judgment with the decision in TRO v. Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 [2007] 293 ITR 369 (SC) which held that where an Act makes a provision with a non-obst…

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12

ITA/442/2016HC Delhi03 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPECIAL BENCHES

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 30ASection 43DSection 6E

…o Rule 6EB in the sense that every amendment or modification in the NHB guidelines has to ipso facto be read into Rule 6EB. 20. This conclusion also draws support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) which held that the RBI Act does not override the provisions of the Act. The Court reconciled the said judgment with the decision in TRO v. Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 [2007] 293 ITR 369 (SC) which held that where an Act makes a provision with a non-obst…

M/S Berar Finance Ltd., Nagpur vs. Joint CIT Range 1, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 105/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh DurugkarFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 2Section 211

…case of Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144. The A.R. has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Elgi Finance Ltd., 239 ITR 357 (Mad.). 5.2 The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd.; 320 ITR 577 (SC) is directly applicable to the issue in hand, wherein the Apex Court has held in favour of the revenue. The relevant extracts of the decision is reproduced below, for better appreciation of facts: "Non-banking-financial institutions ("NBFCs") face a serious setback after the judgment of the Supreme Court this Monday (11 January 2010) in Sout…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram City Union Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 726/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman, Adv

Section 37Section 45

…itten off as bad. In the circumstances, we find there is no scope to support the allegation by the Revenue that there is no write-off and what has been claimed is only a provision. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs Jt. CIT, 320 ITR 577, has held that the nature of expenditure under the income-tax cannot be conclusively determined by the manner in which accounts are presented in terms of the 1998 Directions. Though they deviate from accounting practice as provided in the Companies act, they do not override the provisions of the Income-Tax Act. Therefore, the decision in Southern…

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 506/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman, Adv

Section 37Section 45

…itten off as bad. In the circumstances, we find there is no scope to support the allegation by the Revenue that there is no write-off and what has been claimed is only a provision. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs Jt. CIT, 320 ITR 577, has held that the nature of expenditure under the income-tax cannot be conclusively determined by the manner in which accounts are presented in terms of the 1998 Directions. Though they deviate from accounting practice as provided in the Companies act, they do not override the provisions of the Income-Tax Act. Therefore, the decision in Southern…

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 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar vs. The Nawanshahr Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Nawanshahr

DCIT, Davangere vs. M/S Hiriyur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Harihara

ACIT -2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

The Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Balasore vs. JCIT, Balasore

DCIT, Tirunelveli vs. Tirunelveli District Central Coop Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

Canara Bank vs. Addl.C.I, .T

J.C.I.T vs. M/S Canara Bank

Baitarani Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Balasore

ACIT, Balasore vs. M/S. the Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Balasore

M/S. the Mayurbhanj Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Balasore

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

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12

M/S Berar Finance Ltd., Nagpur vs. Joint CIT Range 1, Nagpur

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram City Union Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai