UCO Bank v. CIT

237 ITR 889Supreme Court of India1999#145 most cited

What is UCO Bank v. CIT authority for?

CBDT circulars and instructions, while not binding on courts or assessees, are strictly binding on income-tax departmental authorities, who cannot act in contravention of them.

486

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

UCO Bank v. CIT · 237 ITR 889 · Supreme Court · CBDT circulars binding on department · instructions to tax authorities · section 119 · income tax authorities bound by circulars · contravention of instructions · 143(2) notices · scope of scrutiny

Also reported as

104 Taxmann 547

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 148Section 132Section 250Section 143(2)Section 147Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 119(1)installation pesection 5(8)section 119(2)(a)dependent agent peagency peservice pefunctional analysisclosely held companysection 150far analysissection 119

Judgments citing UCO Bank v. CIT

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 180/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…CC 599.” 25. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: “The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a)The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any o…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 179/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…CC 599.” 25. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: “The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a)The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any o…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…CC 599.” 25. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: “The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a)The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any o…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 177/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…CC 599.” 25. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: “The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a)The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any o…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…CC 599.” 25. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: “The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a)The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any o…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 175/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…CC 599.” 25. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: “The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a)The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any o…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 174/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…CC 599.” 25. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: “The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a)The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any o…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 173/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…CC 599.” 25. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: “The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a)The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any o…

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 172/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

…CC 599.” 25. Similarly, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: “The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a)The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any o…

Leapfrog Financial Inclusion India (II) Ltd, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 366/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ing in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as, perceived by the respondents." 87. It is a settled position of law that the Circulars issued by CBDT are binding on the tax authorities. The Supreme Court of India in UCO Bank v. CIT, 237 ITR 889 (SC) has categorically held that Circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the revenue authorities. Moreover, the respondent's reliance on the judgment in Tata Teleservices Ltd. (supra) is untenable in law as in the present case, the validity of Circular No. 682, dated 30th March 1994 and Circular No. 789, dated 13th April 2000, has already bee…

Leapfrog Financial Inclusion India (II) Ltd, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 365/DEL/2023[2019-2]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…ing in some economic detriment or prejudice to the national interests, as, perceived by the respondents." 87. It is a settled position of law that the Circulars issued by CBDT are binding on the tax authorities. The Supreme Court of India in UCO Bank v. CIT, 237 ITR 889 (SC) has categorically held that Circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the revenue authorities. Moreover, the respondent's reliance on the judgment in Tata Teleservices Ltd. (supra) is untenable in law as in the present case, the validity of Circular No. 682, dated 30th March 1994 and Circular No. 789, dated 13th April 2000, has already bee…

Ketan Tokershi Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC--2, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1107/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 68

…assessment was not valid. 6. We find that the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Sunita Fin/ease Ltd. 's case (supra) has also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 9 ITA 1107/Mum/2023 Ketan Tokershi Shah the case of UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) and quoted from page 896 as under : 'Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board thus has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under sec…

Panjit Basak, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

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

ITA 358/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

…the set aside and no substantial of law arises. The said judgment relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Indian Oil Corporation and also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT: 237 ITR 889. Hence, we hold that the Assessing Officer can widen the scope of scrutiny even the case is selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, however, the condition precedent for such widening of the scope is that the Assessing Officer has to seek prior approval of the authorities mentioned. Such prior approval and the permission of the PCIT is lacking i…

M/S Mata Road Carriers, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…d is equitably distributed amongst the Assessing Officers after recording reasons in this regard. (5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofKerala Financial Corporation vs. CIT, reported in [1994] 210 ITR 129 (SC), and in UCO Bank vs. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), pointed out that the Board cannot issue circulars overriding, modifying or in effect amending the provisions of the Act. The circular issued by the Central Board though binding on the Assessing Officer in matters relating to general interpretation, the circular cannot deal with specific cases or override the judicial decisions. (6) On a rea…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Reuters Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4550/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

…m the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That CBDT Circulars are binding needs no repetition. If authorities need be cited. We may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uco Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B . [1999] 237 ITR 889. In that judgment the issue was whether Circular of 9-10-1984 was inconsistent or whether there was contradiction in the circular and Section 145 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that :— "... In fact, the circular clarifies the way in which these amounts are to be treated under the accounting practice followed by the lender. The…

ADIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Reuters Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 4575/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

…m the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That CBDT Circulars are binding needs no repetition. If authorities need be cited. We may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uco Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B . [1999] 237 ITR 889. In that judgment the issue was whether Circular of 9-10-1984 was inconsistent or whether there was contradiction in the circular and Section 145 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that :— "... In fact, the circular clarifies the way in which these amounts are to be treated under the accounting practice followed by the lender. The…

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 3617/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

…m the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That CBDT Circulars are binding needs no repetition. If authorities need be cited. We may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uco Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B . [1999] 237 ITR 889. In that judgment the issue was whether Circular of 9-10-1984 was inconsistent or whether there was contradiction in the circular and Section 145 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that :— "... In fact, the circular clarifies the way in which these amounts are to be treated under the accounting practice followed by the lender. The…

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5182/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

…m the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That CBDT Circulars are binding needs no repetition. If authorities need be cited. We may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uco Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B . [1999] 237 ITR 889. In that judgment the issue was whether Circular of 9-10-1984 was inconsistent or whether there was contradiction in the circular and Section 145 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that :— "... In fact, the circular clarifies the way in which these amounts are to be treated under the accounting practice followed by the lender. The…

ADIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai vs. Reuters Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5155/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

…m the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That CBDT Circulars are binding needs no repetition. If authorities need be cited. We may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uco Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B . [1999] 237 ITR 889. In that judgment the issue was whether Circular of 9-10-1984 was inconsistent or whether there was contradiction in the circular and Section 145 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that :— "... In fact, the circular clarifies the way in which these amounts are to be treated under the accounting practice followed by the lender. The…

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 1287/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

…m the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That CBDT Circulars are binding needs no repetition. If authorities need be cited. We may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uco Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B . [1999] 237 ITR 889. In that judgment the issue was whether Circular of 9-10-1984 was inconsistent or whether there was contradiction in the circular and Section 145 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that :— "... In fact, the circular clarifies the way in which these amounts are to be treated under the accounting practice followed by the lender. The…