State Bank of Patiala v. CIT

272 ITR 54High Court2005#1850 most cited

What is State Bank of Patiala v. CIT authority for?

A claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for bad and doubtful debts is restricted to the actual amount of provision made by the assessee, as the statutory language is clear and unambiguous.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State Bank of Patiala v. CIT · Section 36(1)(viia) · bad and doubtful debts deduction · provision for bad and doubtful debts · restriction on deduction · statutory interpretation · reassessment proceedings · Section 148 · Income-tax Act 1961

Also reported as

143 Taxmann 196

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 143(3) of the Income-tax ActSection 144 of the Income-tax ActSection 144B of the Income-tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(via)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(viii)section 36(1)(vii)section 36(1)section 36gross total incomeadvance taxsection 254section 80preassessment proceedingssection 80

Judgments citing State Bank of Patiala v. CIT

The Dharmapuri District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. JCIT, Salem

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistcial purposes to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1188/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1188/Chny/2016 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dharmapuri District Central Jcit बनाम/ Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Range-Iii No.81/10H, Bye Pass Road, Salem. Vs. Dharmapuri – 636 701 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-3148-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19-04-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13-07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…that the RBI directions were only in the context of presentation of NPA in the Balance Sheet and nothing to do with the computation of taxable income. Finally, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala V/s CIT (272 ITR 54), Ld. AO held that the deduction is to be restricted only to the extent of actual provision made in the books of accounts. Accordingly, the deduction was restricted to the extent of Rs.7.36 Lacs. Appellate Prcoeedings 4. The assessee preferred further appeal and assailed the validity of assessment proceedings. However, not convinced, Ld. CIT(A), r…

DCIT, Trichy vs. The Pudukottai District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Pudukkottai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1198/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathianarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…eduction cannot be accepted. The assessee is entitled to deduction to the extent provision made in the accounts subject to limit mentioned in section 36(viia) of the Act. 9. The decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala V/s CIT (272 ITR 54) is also on the similar lines wherein Hon’ble Court has held as under: - 5. Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act as applicable to the assessment year 1985-86, reads as under : "in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by a scheduled bank [not being a bank approved by the Central Government for the purposes of clause (viiia) or a bank…

Tirunelveli District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 512/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha

For Respondent: Dr.I.P.Roopa, JCIT
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 36

…ccounts and shown in the Income computation statement :: 2 :: and additions are made on ignoring the provisions made in the books of accounts of the appellant. 3. The decision of Hon'ble Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs CIT 272 ITR 54, are not applicable to the present case of the appellant bank since Provision is made in accordance with the prudential norms (Income recognition and Asset Classification) of Reserve bank of India in this regard. 4. While disposing the Appeal, the learned CIT(A), Madurai, had failed to appreciate the fact of provision made in the books of accounts…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. N G Balu Reddy HUF, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

…the basis of the information given by Anitha. No further investigation having been done by the assessing authority. In the circumstances, the notice u/s.147 was bad in law as held in the following cases:- Page 11 of 35 1. Ajay Oxycholoride Floorings vs. ACIT 283 ITR 169 2. Tanna Builders P.Ltd., vs. Smt.Neela Krishnan and Another 283 ITR 448 (Bom) 16. In the above cases the issue is that reopening of the assessment on the basis of the protective assessment made after 4 years was bad in law. In this case also the assessment was conclusively made on Anitha individual when notice u/s.148 was issued. Thus, there ca…

M/S Railway Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1542/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K., JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…gible assessee. Hence deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is in respect of provision “made” by the assessee. This argument is also been upheld by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. CIT (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H). 3.6 Since the assessee has claimed the sum of Rs.20,39,432/- without making provision as stated in section 36(1)(viia) of the Act same is not allowable as deduction.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the CIT…

Krishna Sahakari Bank Ltd, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara

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

ITA 419/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Krishna Sahakari Bank Ltd., Malkapur, Tal-Karad, Dist. Satara - 415539 PAN : AAAAK2603A .......अऩीऱधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Satara ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 09-07-2021 घोषणध की तधरीख / Date of Pronouncement : 13-07-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal p…

ACIT Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore vs. The Cuddalore District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1921/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1921/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Periasamy, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी जी मंजूनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1921/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Income M/s. The Cuddalore District Tax, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Cuddalore Circle, Vs. No.1, Beach Road, Cuddalore. Cuddalore – 607 001. [PAN: AAAAT 7716R] (""थ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT ""थ" की ओर से…

M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…essment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore vs. M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…essment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…essment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…essment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries…

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…essment years 2008-09 and 2008-09. Ld.AR relied on following decisions in support of his arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1937/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

…ring the arguments the Ld. CIT DR argued that the assessee’s accounting system is not as per the guidelines given by the RBI. The Ld. DR argued relying on the judgment of Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala order dated 24th May, 2004, 272 ITR 54 that since the assessee has not made any provision further PBDD that disallowance made by the Assessing Officer needs to be upheld. It was argued that the Hon’ble Court has allowed PBDD u/s 36(1)(viia) only to the extent of the provisions made. It was reiterated that since no provision has been made that assessee, no deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) i…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 2234/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…imilar issue had come up before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA.No. 6920/Mum/2013 in Revenue’s appeal and the Tribunal by order dated 31.07.2015 following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala [272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find that the i…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 2233/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…imilar issue had come up before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA.No. 6920/Mum/2013 in Revenue’s appeal and the Tribunal by order dated 31.07.2015 following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala [272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find that the i…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 2232/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…imilar issue had come up before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA.No. 6920/Mum/2013 in Revenue’s appeal and the Tribunal by order dated 31.07.2015 following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala [272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find that the i…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 2231/MUM/2018[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…imilar issue had come up before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA.No. 6920/Mum/2013 in Revenue’s appeal and the Tribunal by order dated 31.07.2015 following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala [272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find that the i…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1803/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…imilar issue had come up before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA.No. 6920/Mum/2013 in Revenue’s appeal and the Tribunal by order dated 31.07.2015 following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala [272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find that the i…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1802/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…imilar issue had come up before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA.No. 6920/Mum/2013 in Revenue’s appeal and the Tribunal by order dated 31.07.2015 following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala [272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find that the i…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1801/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…imilar issue had come up before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA.No. 6920/Mum/2013 in Revenue’s appeal and the Tribunal by order dated 31.07.2015 following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala [272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find that the i…