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 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 366,470 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 14A Section 1961 Section 115JB Section 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 depreciation section 41 section 36(1)profits and gains of business or profession

Judgments citing Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2967/KOL/2003[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Ghosh, FCA & Sjhri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 29Section 30Section 37

…o allow deduction of Rs.2.36 crores being unrealized interest offered for tax in the earlier year now reversed by the assessee.” 8. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered min the case of Southern Technical 320 ITR 577 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that provision of RBI are not pending while computing the income of the assessee. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. The decision referred to by the ld. Counsel for the assessee supports the claim of the assessee for deduction on the ground that the claim for deduction has to be allowe…

D.C.I.T Cir - 8, Kolkata. vs. M/S Medpat Finance Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 625/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 D.C.I.T, Circle-8, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Medpat Finace Limited Pan: Aaccm 0685L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.C Das,JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S Damle, FCA, ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…incipal amount itself had become doubtful to recover. In that scenario, it was legitimate move to infer that interest income thereupon had not ‘accrued’. 3.3.1. We also find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd reported in 320 ITR 577 (SC) had held as follows:- “It is well settled that accounting policy followed by a company can be changed unless the AO comes to the conclusion that change would result in under statement of profit. However here is a case where the AO has to follow the RBI directions 1998 in view of section 45Q of RBI Act. Hence, as far as income recognition is…

Dcb Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 820/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 820/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 Dcb Bank Ltd., The Acit-Circle 2(3), बनाम/ Formerly Development Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Credit Bank Ltd., 6Th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Peninsulla Business Park, Tower A, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava

Section 14A

…s entitled for deduction with respect to the diminution in value of the investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI guideline without appreciating the ration of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs. CIT 320 ITR 577.” 16. Ground No. 1,2 & 3 relate to the same issue in relation to the claim of depreciation on leased assets amounting to Rs. 27,09,894/-. 16.1. The AO at para-7.1 of his order has observed as under: “The leased assets were purchased and leased during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. No new assets were…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 615/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava

Section 14A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi

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

ITA 1961/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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 s…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1937/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Bank of Ceylon, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

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

ITA 518/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.518/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Bank Of Ceylon , The Deputy Director Of 20/21, Casa Major Road, Vs. Income Tax, New No.2, Zerart Garden Ii Lane, International Taxation I, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacb2218C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate Shri S. Ganapathi Subramanian, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. B. Nischal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT

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

…ms of the Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI. These deviations prevail to protect the depositors in the context of income recognition and presentation of the assets and provisions created against them. [para 28, SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JCIT (2010) 320 ITR 577 ] 8.5 Thus, I held that NPA is not same as bad and doubtful debts and accordingly the requirement of provision for bad and doubtful debts is not satisfied by the appellant. The IT Act deals only with doubtful debt. It is for the assessee to establish that the provision is made as the loan is irrecoverable. Hence the appellant fails on ground no.…

Zanav Home Collection vs. JCIT

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K. Babay, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 36(1)(vii)

…r the assessee, who after bringing out the undisputed facts as explained in the earlier part of this order, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. v. CIT, 323 ITR 398 (SC) and Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT, 320 ITR 577. It was his submission that the assessee should be allowed the deduction as the debt in question has been written off by squaring off the debtors account in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 and in view of the fact that the provision for bad and doubtful debts made in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 had not been claimed as ded…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 371 / 2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015

Section 260ASection 32

…ined liability so as to attract clause (b) or (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Revenue has contested and argued to the contrary. Decision of the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC), was referred. 12. In order to appreciate the controversy, we would like to reproduce the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act as applicable to the assessment year 2007-08 reads:- [Special provision for payment of tax by certain companies. 115JB. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/371/2012HC Delhi13 Feb 2015

Section 260ASection 32

M/S.Sundaram Fin.Ltd vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-005895-005895 - 2008Supreme Court11 Sept 2012

Section 28

…Page 1 JUDGMENT 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5895 OF 2008 M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. … Appellant(s) Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai …Respondent(s) With Civil Appeal No. 6388/2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11552/2009 and Civil Appeal No.6389/2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11191/2009) O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5895 OF 2008 This civil appeal is filed by the assessee. Assessee is a Non Banking Finance Company. This civil appeal concerns assessmen…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

ITA/2886/2005HC Karnataka06 Jun 2012

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

Section 143Section 260Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(2)Section 80M

…x liability and taxable income under the provisions of Income Tax Act is concerned, our attention is drawn to paragraph 32 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in 320 ITR 577, which reads as under: 32. RBI Directions 1998 have been issued under s. 45JA of RBI Act. Under that section, power is given to RBI to enact a regulatory framework involving prescription of prudential norms for NBFCs which are deposit taking to ensure that NBFCs function on sound and healthy lines. The primary object of the said 1998 Directions…

Commissioner of of Income Tax vs. Vishisth Chay Vyapar Limited

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1191 / 2007HC Delhi29 Nov 2010

…respondent in respect of such unrealized interest when the loan/ICD was admittedly NPA. - 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of **Southern Technologies Ltd.** Vs. **Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax,** 320 ITR 577 and on that basis he argued that in so far as liability of Income Tax is concerned, the same was governed by the Income-Tax Act an merely because for accounting purposes, the respondent assessee was to follow the RBI guidelines, it would not mean that the assessee was not liable to show the interest income when it had "accrued" to the assessee u…