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

DCIT, Circle-8 vs. M/S. Bajaj Finance Ltd. Pune, Akurdi Pune

ITA 819/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.766 and 767/PUN/2018 Assessment Years : 2012-13 and 2013-14 Bajaj Finance Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Pune Plot No.43/1, 43/2, 44/2, Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCB1518L Appellant Respondent ITA Nos.818 and 819/PUN/2018 Assessment Years : 2012-13 and 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-8, Vs. Bajaj Finance Limited, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Pune Plot No.43/1, 43/2, 44/2, Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCB1518L Appellant Respon…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Bajaj Finanace Ltd, Pune

ITA 818/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.766 and 767/PUN/2018 Assessment Years : 2012-13 and 2013-14 Bajaj Finance Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Pune Plot No.43/1, 43/2, 44/2, Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCB1518L Appellant Respondent ITA Nos.818 and 819/PUN/2018 Assessment Years : 2012-13 and 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-8, Vs. Bajaj Finance Limited, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Pune Plot No.43/1, 43/2, 44/2, Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCB1518L Appellant Respon…

Bajaj Finance Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

ITA 767/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.766 and 767/PUN/2018 Assessment Years : 2012-13 and 2013-14 Bajaj Finance Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Pune Plot No.43/1, 43/2, 44/2, Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCB1518L Appellant Respondent ITA Nos.818 and 819/PUN/2018 Assessment Years : 2012-13 and 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-8, Vs. Bajaj Finance Limited, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Pune Plot No.43/1, 43/2, 44/2, Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCB1518L Appellant Respon…

Bajaj Finance Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

ITA 766/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel
Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.766 and 767/PUN/2018 Assessment Years : 2012-13 and 2013-14 Bajaj Finance Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Pune Plot No.43/1, 43/2, 44/2, Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCB1518L Appellant Respondent ITA Nos.818 and 819/PUN/2018 Assessment Years : 2012-13 and 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-8, Vs. Bajaj Finance Limited, 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Pune Plot No.43/1, 43/2, 44/2, Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCB1518L Appellant Respon…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2726/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…ections are not binding on the Income Tax Authorities as far as determination of total income of an assessee is concerned. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs JCIT reported in 320 ITR 577 (SC) wherein it was held that RBI prudential norms for asset classification deal only with presentation of NPA provisions in the balance sheet and they have nothing to do with computation or taxability of provisions for NPA under Income Tax Act. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the RBI guidelines only prescribe the date of implementation of cens…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2725/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…ections are not binding on the Income Tax Authorities as far as determination of total income of an assessee is concerned. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs JCIT reported in 320 ITR 577 (SC) wherein it was held that RBI prudential norms for asset classification deal only with presentation of NPA provisions in the balance sheet and they have nothing to do with computation or taxability of provisions for NPA under Income Tax Act. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the RBI guidelines only prescribe the date of implementation of cens…

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2676/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

…ections are not binding on the Income Tax Authorities as far as determination of total income of an assessee is concerned. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs JCIT reported in 320 ITR 577 (SC) wherein it was held that RBI prudential norms for asset classification deal only with presentation of NPA provisions in the balance sheet and they have nothing to do with computation or taxability of provisions for NPA under Income Tax Act. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the RBI guidelines only prescribe the date of implementation of cens…

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2675/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

…ections are not binding on the Income Tax Authorities as far as determination of total income of an assessee is concerned. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd vs JCIT reported in 320 ITR 577 (SC) wherein it was held that RBI prudential norms for asset classification deal only with presentation of NPA provisions in the balance sheet and they have nothing to do with computation or taxability of provisions for NPA under Income Tax Act. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the RBI guidelines only prescribe the date of implementation of cens…

Ram Garhia Co-Operative Bank Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6792/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6792/Del/2018 (A.Y 2013-14)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Girish Kohli
Section 194ASection 36Section 40

…paid was capital in nature. Therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee. In the Appeal before the CIT(A) has been held that the same was ‘capital loss’ and by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technology Vs. CIT 320 ITR 577 S.C held that RBI Guidelines do not over ride the Income Tax Act and confirmed the disallowance made by the A.O. 21. It is not in dispute that the very same issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in the case of M/s Visvesvaraya Cooperative Bank Ltd. and further in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 the Tribunal…

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…d in (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) Volume 323 has held as under:- “6. The first question is no more res integra. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Southern Technologies Limited v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore reported in (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 (page 604 “Prior to April 1, 2989, the law, as it then stood, took the view that even in cases in which the asssssee(s) makes only a provision in…

The Muzaffarpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Muzaffarpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 88/PAT/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mainsh Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…is non-speaking and summarily rejecting the grounds of appeal is against the principle of Natural Justice and as such is not sustainable. 4. For that Hon’ble Bombay High Court referring the judgement in the case of southern Technology Ltd. vs JCIT reported in 320 ITR 577 (SC) clearly held that in the assessment of Co-operative Bank the RBI Act would prevail over the other Acts for recognizing income. 5. For that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts has been made according to the guidelines of RBI, it would have on overriding effect over the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the I.T. Act. The provision for…

The Muzaffarpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Muzaffarpur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 87/PAT/2019[12/03/2019]Status: HeardITAT Patna05 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri Mainsh Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 139(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 72

…This amount, though credited in profit & loss account, is actually a capital receipt, not liable to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. For that Hon’ble Bombay High Court referring the judgement in the case of southern Technology Ltd. vs JCIT reported in 320 ITR 577 (SC) clearly held that in the assessment of Co-operative Bank the RBI Act would prevail over the other Acts for recognizing income. 17. For that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts has been made according to the guidelines of RBI, it would have on overriding effect over the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the I.T. Act. The provision fo…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…ion with respect to the diminution in value of the investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies v. CIT (320 ITR 577) ?" The honourable High Court held as Under : 7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.1079 of 2012, CIT-2 v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar f…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…ion with respect to the diminution in value of the investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies v. CIT (320 ITR 577) ?" The honourable High Court held as Under : 7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.1079 of 2012, CIT-2 v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar f…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…ion with respect to the diminution in value of the investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies v. CIT (320 ITR 577) ?" The honourable High Court held as Under : 7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.1079 of 2012, CIT-2 v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar f…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…ion with respect to the diminution in value of the investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies v. CIT (320 ITR 577) ?" The honourable High Court held as Under : 7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.1079 of 2012, CIT-2 v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar f…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…ion with respect to the diminution in value of the investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies v. CIT (320 ITR 577) ?" The honourable High Court held as Under : 7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.1079 of 2012, CIT-2 v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar f…

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…ion with respect to the diminution in value of the investment and amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on the ground of mandate by RBI guidelines thereby ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies v. CIT (320 ITR 577) ?" The honourable High Court held as Under : 7. As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its judgement dated 4-7-2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.1079 of 2012, CIT-2 v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.). Mr Suresh Kumar f…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Davanagere vs. M/S. Davangere District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Davanagere

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1403/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Vs. M/S. Davangere District Central Co-Op Bank Circle – 1, Limited, Davangere. Janatha Bazar Complex, Behind City Municipality, Davangere. Pan : Aaatd 6617 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 27.03.2019 Of Cit(A), Davangere, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 36Section 36(2)Section 64

…(Appeal) erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessee can follow mixed system of accounting. 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 Page 2 of 6 are only prudential norms and cannot overrule income recognition as per Income-tax Act. 5. The CIT(Appeals) erred in granting relief to the assessee on the addition made on account of claim of -provision for misappropriation amounting to Rs. 7,50,99,000/-as there is reasonable prospect of getting the misappropriate am…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1907/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranthe Karnataka Bank Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 2(1) Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Mangalore Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle – 2(1) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27-03-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Mangaluru & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Banking Company Carrying On Banking Business. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish
Section 14A

…he AO expressed the view that the Prudential write off is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act, since it is not actual write off. He then relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs. ACIT (352 ITR 577)(SC), wherein it was held that the mere making of provision for NPA cannot be considered as write off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. He also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador (2002)(253 ITR 430)(Ker), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act only if the asses…