State Bank of Patiala v. CIT

219 ITR 706Supreme Court of India1996#11293 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2021.

Issues it is cited on

section 115jsection 115section 11prescribedcompanyindiabusiness

Judgments citing State Bank of Patiala v. CIT

Kavita Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…ce Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT profit and loss account is termed as “Provision for Doubtful Assets”, however in substance it is a “Reserve” and not a “Provision”. The difference between the two is now well settled. In case of State Bank of Patiala v. CIT reported in 219 ITR 706(SC) it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that: "A fair reading of the above decisions would go to show that if the transfer of amount is made ad hoc, when there is no known or anticipated liability, such fund will only be treated as reserve. In this case, substantial amounts were set apart as reserves. No amount of bad debts was actually writte…

M/S the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4535/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2010-11
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…ce Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT profit and loss account is termed as “Provision for Doubtful Assets”, however in substance it is a “Reserve” and not a “Provision”. The difference between the two is now well settled. In case of State Bank of Patiala v. CIT reported in 219 ITR 706(SC) it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that: "A fair reading of the above decisions would go to show that if the transfer of amount is made ad hoc, when there is no known or anticipated liability, such fund will only be treated as reserve. In this case, substantial amounts were set apart as reserves. No amount of bad debts was actually writte…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Cfl Capital Financial Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2110/KOL/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2110/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03)

For Appellant: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…Capital Finances Services Ltd. Assessment Year:2002-03 over non-performing assets following RBI guideline. The Assessing Officer also referred the decision in the case of Jyoti Ltd. reported in 219 ITR 388 and in the case of State Bank of Patiala reported in 219 ITR 706, the Apex Court held that a provision can be allowed only when the liability has crystallized and not before that. Here, the assessee makes the provision under surmise and assumption that the debt will be bad in future. When it is actually lost, it claims it as bad debts written off and that is allowed. But no provision on unascertained liability…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2017AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 33A

…rovisions of section 115JB of the Act, the book profit is required to be increased by the amount carried to any reserve account. We also note that the AO has rightly relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala reported as 219 ITR 706(SC) wherein it was clearly held that the issue of what construes “reserve” and “provision” and the ratio laid down in these decisions clearly enlighten us that to constitute a reserve, a particular amount set aside out of the profit and other surpluses, should be such as not designated to meet a liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in…

M/S. Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1904/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2017AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 33A

…rovisions of section 115JB of the Act, the book profit is required to be increased by the amount carried to any reserve account. We also note that the AO has rightly relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala reported as 219 ITR 706(SC) wherein it was clearly held that the issue of what construes “reserve” and “provision” and the ratio laid down in these decisions clearly enlighten us that to constitute a reserve, a particular amount set aside out of the profit and other surpluses, should be such as not designated to meet a liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in…

DCIT, Circle -6 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 983/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari Shankar Lal, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…General Insurance Co Ltd reported in (2007) 291 ITR 370 (SC) had held that such provision is not to be held as a provision for an expenditure and distinguishing the earlier decision of the Apex Court delivered in the case of State Bank of Patiala reported in 219 ITR 706 (SC) , held that it cannot be disallowed in case of a insurance business where a special provision for taxation is given u/s 44 read with Rule 5 of Part B of 1st Schedule to the Act. The position in respect of National Insurance company is slightly different. In its appeal proceedings before the ld CITA for Asst Year 2000-01, the assessee company…

DCIT, Circle -6 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 982/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari Shankar Lal, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…General Insurance Co Ltd reported in (2007) 291 ITR 370 (SC) had held that such provision is not to be held as a provision for an expenditure and distinguishing the earlier decision of the Apex Court delivered in the case of State Bank of Patiala reported in 219 ITR 706 (SC) , held that it cannot be disallowed in case of a insurance business where a special provision for taxation is given u/s 44 read with Rule 5 of Part B of 1st Schedule to the Act. The position in respect of National Insurance company is slightly different. In its appeal proceedings before the ld CITA for Asst Year 2000-01, the assessee company…

DCIT, Circle -6 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 674/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari Shankar Lal, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…General Insurance Co Ltd reported in (2007) 291 ITR 370 (SC) had held that such provision is not to be held as a provision for an expenditure and distinguishing the earlier decision of the Apex Court delivered in the case of State Bank of Patiala reported in 219 ITR 706 (SC) , held that it cannot be disallowed in case of a insurance business where a special provision for taxation is given u/s 44 read with Rule 5 of Part B of 1st Schedule to the Act. The position in respect of National Insurance company is slightly different. In its appeal proceedings before the ld CITA for Asst Year 2000-01, the assessee company…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. E.I.Dupont India Ltd

ITA - 599 / 2007HC Delhi11 Jan 2008
Section 115JSection 260A

…* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI ITA No.599 of 2007 % Judgment reserved on: 4 th January, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 11 th January, 2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -IV, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate Vs. E. I. DUPONT INDIA LTD. DLF CYBER GREENS, TOWER-C, 7TH FLOOR, SECTOR-25A, DLF CITY PH-3 GURGAON ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi and Mr.JohnsonBara,Advocates Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?…

State Bank of Patiala v. CIT (219 ITR 706) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax