Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT

2 SCC 548Supreme Court of India2010#7730 most cited

What is Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court clarifies the operation of Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning their application to Non-Banking Financial Corporations (NBFCs) in contrast to banks. It emphasizes the meaning of a 'write-off' in the context of doubtful debts.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Southern Technologies Ltd v Joint CIT · Section 36(1)(vii) · Section 36(1)(viia) · write off doubtful debts · NBFC · bank · Income Tax Act 1961

Judgments citing Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT

M/S.Kottayam Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/34/2018HC Kerala15 Dec 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURALFor Respondent: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

…anation must depend upon its terms, and no theory of its purpose can be entertained unless it is to be inferred from the language used. (Krishna Ayyankar v. Nattaperumal Pillai (ILR 43 Madras 550) , Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (1977 2 SCC 548) Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (1989 (4) SCC 378). Purposive construction is permissible if any other construction does not fit with the description or the avowed purpose. We may sum up the objects of an explanation by referring to Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman (1985 1 SCC 591): “(a) to explain the meaning and inten…

The Meenachil Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/25/2019HC Kerala15 Dec 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURALFor Respondent: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

…anation must depend upon its terms, and no theory of its purpose can be entertained unless it is to be inferred from the language used. (Krishna Ayyankar v. Nattaperumal Pillai (ILR 43 Madras 550) , Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (1977 2 SCC 548) Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (1989 (4) SCC 378). Purposive construction is permissible if any other construction does not fit with the description or the avowed purpose. We may sum up the objects of an explanation by referring to Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman (1985 1 SCC 591): “(a) to explain the meaning and inten…

The Meenachil Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/35/2018HC Kerala15 Dec 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURALFor Respondent: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

…anation must depend upon its terms, and no theory of its purpose can be entertained unless it is to be inferred from the language used. (Krishna Ayyankar v. Nattaperumal Pillai (ILR 43 Madras 550) , Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (1977 2 SCC 548) Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (1989 (4) SCC 378). Purposive construction is permissible if any other construction does not fit with the description or the avowed purpose. We may sum up the objects of an explanation by referring to Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman (1985 1 SCC 591): “(a) to explain the meaning and inten…

M/S. Kinfra Export Promotion Industrial Parks Ltd vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)

ITA/65/2018HC Kerala07 Apr 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 260A

…the word ‘provided’. A proviso is introduced to indicate the effect of certain things which are within the statute but accompanied with the peculiar conditions embraced within the proviso. It modifies the immediately preceding language. (James 9(1977 2 SCC 548), 10(1989 4 SCC 378). 11(1985 1 SCC 591 ITA Nos.62&65/2018 31 DeWitt Andrews- statutory construction) 15.5. The purpose and functions of a proviso are set out in great detail by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. VKC Footsteps (India) (P) ltd12 in para 91 to 94, read thus: “Construing the proviso. 91. Provisos in a statute have…

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pasupati Acrylon Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8200/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gupta, C.A
Section 115J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8200/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2015-16 The ACIT, M/s. Pasupati Acrylon Circle – 19 (2), Limited, M-14, Connaught vs., Room No.221, C.R. Circus, Middle Circle, New Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 110 001. New Delhi - 110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Suresh Gupta, C.A. For Assessee : Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, A.M. This appeal filed by the Revenue is dir…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. the Deola Merchant Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2992/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.2992/Pun/2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu DasFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Avchat
Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43D

…and the assessee did not incur any such expenditure. Ld. DR relied on the following judgments and other cases where the Revenue preferred appeals before the Hon’ble High Court : 1. Shakti Finance Ltd. 31 Taxman.com 305 2. Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT 2 SCC 548 Ld. DR further submitted that without obtaining the necessary verification with regard to issue of interest on NPAs, i.e. categorization of NPAs qua the provisions of Rule 6EA(e) read with clause (a) of section 43D of the Act. He 4 M/s. The Deola Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd., further stated that section 43D of the Act is held to be applicabl…

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

…1961, are required to be confirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal by relying on the judgment in the matter of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT reported in [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) ; [2010] 2 SCC 548. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-co-operative banks submit that the issues involved in the above appeals are no more res integra in view of the decision rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the learned Tri…

M/S Triveni Plenty Engg. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/740/2004HC Delhi27 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…d.?" 3. It is pointed out that in terms of the Explaination to Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Assessee as inserted with effect from 1st April, 1989 and as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 2 SCC 548 and Vijaya Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 5 SCC 416 both the questions are required to be answered in the affirmative i.e. in the favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 4. The appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J APRIL 27, 2017 b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5373/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 142(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘D’, New Delhi Before : Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 5373 & 4839/Del./2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 D.C.I.T. Circle 22(1), vs..Jagdish Prasad Gupta, A-2, New Delhi. New Friends Colony, New Delhi.(PAN- AAHPG 6016D) (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 1885/Del./2011 Assessment Years: 2008-09 D.C.I.T. Circle 4(1), vs..Jagdish Prasad Gupta, A-2, New Delhi. New Friends Colony, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 262/Del./2011 (in ITA No. 5373/Del./2010) Assessment Years: 2005-06 Jagdish Prasa…

Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 834/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43DSection 45Q

…1961, are required to be confirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal by relying on the judgment in the matter of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT reported in [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) ; [2010] 2 SCC 548. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-co-operative banks submit that the issues involved in the above appeals are no more res integra in view of the decision rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the learned Tri…

Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 833/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43DSection 45Q

…1961, are required to be confirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal by relying on the judgment in the matter of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT reported in [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) ; [2010] 2 SCC 548. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-co-operative banks submit that the issues involved in the above appeals are no more res integra in view of the decision rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the learned Tri…

Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 832/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43DSection 45Q

…1961, are required to be confirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal by relying on the judgment in the matter of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT reported in [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) ; [2010] 2 SCC 548. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-co-operative banks submit that the issues involved in the above appeals are no more res integra in view of the decision rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the learned Tri…

Tamilnadu State Apex Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2177/CHNY/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…without distinguishing the ratio relied in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (supra) observed at para 29 of the order at page 16 of paper book as under:- ‘’29. In a recent judgment of this Court, in Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT , Coimbatore (2010) 2 SCC 548 (authored by one of us, Kapaida, J as he then was), both Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) were discussed. Then, this Court went on to state how these provisions operate in the case of a Non Banking Financial Corporations (NBFC) vis-A-vis bank covered under Section 36(1)(viia). The Court held as under:- ITA No.2177 & 2178/Mds/2014. :- 9 -: "37.…

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur

C.A. No.-001143-001143 - 2011Supreme Court17 Feb 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1143 OF 2011 Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. … Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur … Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1147 of 2011 CIVL APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1155 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1156-1160 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1170 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1172 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1173 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1174 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1175 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1176 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1177 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO…