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)

Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 1903/CHNY/2016[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, JCIT

Section 145

…rve Bank of India cannot override the Income-tax Act. The RBI guidelines are only disclosure norms and they are nothing to do with taxable income. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals), by applying the judgment of Apex Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. v JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577, found that when the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, the income/interest on the loan has to be recognized. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the Reserve Bank of Indi…

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of

ITA 6795/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Anand, CIT/DR

Section 14A

…377 (Bom). The ITAT has noted that the above decisions referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) and Southern Technologies Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC). 4. However, Mr. Shivpuri, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, seeks to place reliance on another decision of High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of. Income Tax v. ING VYSYA Bank Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 532 (Kar.) where, in the facts of that case it was held that where the Assessee invested in securities for the purpo…

Prathama Bank, Moradabad vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2316/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Prathma Bank, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase-Ii, Moradabad-244001 Moradabad-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2013 Of Ld. Cit, Moradabad.

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…interest of the Revenue. 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the assessee filed its revised return on the basis of the 18 Prathama Bank judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs JCIT reported at 320 ITR 577. Thereafter, the AO vide order sheet entry dated 01.11.2011 (copy of which is placed age page no. 7 of the assesse’s paper book) asked the assessee to furnish various details with respect to the following: “i. Brief note on the modus operand of the business activities; ii. Computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia); iii. Working of provision for ba…

The Hindustan Co Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1501/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1501/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 200910) The Hindustan CoOperative Bank Ltd. Jt. Cit13(3), बनाम/ 4A, Devi Galli, Baburao Bobde Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Lokhand Bazar, Mumbai400 009 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabat 4355 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Amar Gahlot, Shri S. Sriram ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raja सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 01.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)24, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.11.2013, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009 10 Vide Order Dated 21.12.2011. 2. The Assessee, A CoOperative Bank In The Business Of Banking, Governed By The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 As Well As The Maharashtra State CoOperative Societies Act, 1960, Claimed ‘Investment Loss Adjusted From Idr’ In The Sum Of Rs.80.991 Lacs In The Computation Of Its Business Income For The Year (Pb Pgs. 2426). It Is This Claim

For Appellant: Shri Amar GahlotFor Respondent: Shri B. Satyanarayana Raja

Section 143(3)

…her than by following the said principle, the RBI prescription, which is contended to have been scrupulously followed and guided the preparation of its’ accounts. This is also the ratio of the decisions, inter alia, in Southern Technologies Ltd vs. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) and New India Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (Asst.) [2000] 18 SOT 51 (Del) (SB) (the latter referred to in State Bank of Mysore vs. CIT (Dy.) [2009] 33 SOT 7 (Bang), relied upon by the assessee). Thus, despite our agreement with the proposition of loss on conversion of its securities from AFS to HTM category being deductible – the bank thereby con…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri R.N.Bajoria Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 43D

…ave 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 contemp…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 13/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ving that the provision for doubtful debts was not a crystallized expense. 12. Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577. 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and considered the material available on record. Facts are not disputed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies (supra) has held as under: “The Non-Banking Financial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998, are only disclosure norms: they have noth…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5854/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ving that the provision for doubtful debts was not a crystallized expense. 12. Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577. 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and considered the material available on record. Facts are not disputed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies (supra) has held as under: “The Non-Banking Financial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998, are only disclosure norms: they have noth…

Ge Money Financial Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4235/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ving that the provision for doubtful debts was not a crystallized expense. 12. Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577. 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and considered the material available on record. Facts are not disputed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies (supra) has held as under: “The Non-Banking Financial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998, are only disclosure norms: they have noth…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4206/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ving that the provision for doubtful debts was not a crystallized expense. 12. Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577. 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and considered the material available on record. Facts are not disputed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies (supra) has held as under: “The Non-Banking Financial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998, are only disclosure norms: they have noth…

Ge Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1)

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1357/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…ving that the provision for doubtful debts was not a crystallized expense. 12. Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577. 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and considered the material available on record. Facts are not disputed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies (supra) has held as under: “The Non-Banking Financial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1998, are only disclosure norms: they have noth…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands disposed off accordingly

ITA 100/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Pandwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri N C Swain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 36Section 92C

…ities and provisions" on the liabilities side of the balance-sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt. In the latter case, the assessee would no) be entitled to deduction after April 1, 1989. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. JOINT (IT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) followed. Though a mere debit to the profit and loss account would constitute a provision for a bad and doubtful debt, yet that would not constitute actual write off But where, besides debiting the profit and loss creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee has correspondingly/simultaneously obliterated the said provision fr…