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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Jabalpur vs. M/S. Mahakaushal Sugar & Power Industries Ltd., Narsinghpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 80

…s. 5.3 The interpretation of the provision of s.80IA apart, it is even otherwise trite law that it is only the real, as opposed to, hypothetical income, that is to be subject to tax, and toward which we may refer to some decisions, viz. UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC); Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC), CIT v. P. Mariappa Gounder [1984] 147 ITR 676 (Mad). As such, only the income actually accrued, and which in turn is liable to be reckoned with reference to the purchase cost of power that the sugar division would be required to pay in the normal course of its business, or that for…

Rcc Institute of Technology, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 108/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.108/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rcc Institute Of Technology..…………………................................……Appellant C.I.T Cambus(Old), Cannel South Road, Beliaghata, Kolkata-700015. [Pan: Aaaar4012N] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata............…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(Exemption’)] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption) U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of 2019 Of Cbdt. Since The Aforesaid Legal Issue Will Be Determinative Of The Very Validity Of The Impugned Revision Order Passed

Section 119Section 263

…f Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC) wherein it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee. 13.2 In the case of UCO Bank [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the legal status of such circulars, observed thus (page 896): "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,…

Shri Mahesh Kumar Sureka, Howrah vs. PCIT-13, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 106/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.106/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Mahesh Kumar Sureka..…………………................................……Appellant 6/2/1, Ashutosh Mukherjee Lane, Howrah-711106. [Pan: Alcps8735K] Vs. Pcit-13, Kolkata......................…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.01.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of 2019 Of Cbdt. Since The Aforesaid Legal Issue Will Be Determinative Of The Very Validity Of The Impugned Revision Order

Section 119Section 263

…of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC) wherein it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee. 13.2 In the case of UCO Bank [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the legal status of such circulars, observed thus (page 896): "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,…

Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(6), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 432/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.432/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sunita Agarwal………………………………................................……Appellant C/O Rajesh Mohan & Associates, Unit No.18, 5Th Floor, Bagati House, 34, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Adcpa9325P] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(6), Kolkata............…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Sudhir Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.06.2020 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Contested The Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act Not Only On Merits But Also, Inter Alia, On The Ground That The Aforesaid Order Was Null & Void As No Document Identification Number (Din) Has Been Mentioned In The Body Of The Impugned Order Which Was In Violation Of Circular No.19 Of

Section 119Section 263

…f Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC) wherein it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee. 13.2 In the case of UCO Bank [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the legal status of such circulars, observed thus (page 896): "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,…

M/S. Praxair India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 199/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury 2B Block 6th Floor, Prestige Technology Park Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli Vs. ACIT Ci rcle-2 Bengaluru 566 103 Bengaluru PAN NO : AAACP9993J APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury 2B Block 6th Floor, Prestige Tech…

M/S Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3336/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury 2B Block 6th Floor, Prestige Technology Park Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli Vs. ACIT Ci rcle-2 Bengaluru 566 103 Bengaluru PAN NO : AAACP9993J APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd. Mercury 2B Block 6th Floor, Prestige Tech…

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…ility of the investments and loans given for W&M group. 6.3.2 The learned Senior Counsel argued that when the principal itself is not recoverable, there is no question of charging interest on such irrecoverable amounts. The decisions in UCO Bank v CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) Godhra Electricity Co Ltd v CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 351 (SC), ACIT v Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co Ltd. [2018] 94 taxmann.com 486 (Mumbai Trib) and Hilti Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd v ACIT ITA No.1565/Mum/2017 dated 12.7.2021 were relied on by the learned Senior Counsel in support of the contention that TP adjustment for interest on AE receivables sh…

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2CSection 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.239/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2016-17 Intrado EC India Private Ltd. Vs. The Deputy (formerly West Unified Commissioner of Income Communications India Pvt. Ltd.], Tax, # 135, 1st Floor, RMZ Titanium, Circle 3(1)(1), Old Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 017. PAN: AAACI 6707K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.11.2022 Dat…

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 405/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.403 to 405/Bang/2022 Assessment years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 Dilip Kothari, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of No.5, Middle School Road, Income Tax (Central), 4th Floor, V.V. Puram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. PAN: ADHPK 6738P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Acc…

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 404/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.403 to 405/Bang/2022 Assessment years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 Dilip Kothari, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of No.5, Middle School Road, Income Tax (Central), 4th Floor, V.V. Puram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. PAN: ADHPK 6738P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Acc…

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 403/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.403 to 405/Bang/2022 Assessment years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 Dilip Kothari, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of No.5, Middle School Road, Income Tax (Central), 4th Floor, V.V. Puram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. PAN: ADHPK 6738P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 20.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Acc…

M/S Abdul Gaffar Hazi Hassan, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 289/RPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.289/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Abdul Gaffar Hazi Hassan, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Bukhari Service Station, Link Road Bilaspur(C.G.)-495001 Pan No. : Aajfa 2350 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 40

…e power 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 Section 119 which are binding on the authorities. The Supreme Court pointed point on UCO Bank versus CIT, 237 ITR 889, that such circulars cannot be adverse to the assessee. The authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forego the advantage, when required to wield it in a manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law. It is a beneficial power for proper administration of fiscal law to avoid undue hard…

DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. SalilKapoor, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 26(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…y of CBDT's Circular number 22/2015, the circular cannot be conclusive and override judicial decisions as held in Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. CBDT (1987) 166 ITR 88 (Del.), CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 463(SC) and UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC). 6.7 I have examined the detailed chart of ESI/PF/LWF payments which is also part of the assessment order. Since in the present case, the appellant company has paid the disallowed employee's contribution towards ESI/PF and LWF amounting to Rs 3,65,21,460/- well before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1), keeping in view the above ci…

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

…ws in force in either country will continue to govern the assessment and taxation of income in the respective country except where provisions to the contrary have been made in the agreement." 27. In the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 154 CTR (SC) 88 : (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to survey the judicial precedents on the question of binding nature of the CBDT circulars. After elaborately dealing with Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments in the cases of Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC…

Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Tata Medical Centre Trust Commissioner Of Income- Plot No. Dh 7 Dh 8, 14 Tax, (Exemption), Major Arterial Road (Ew) Vs. Kolkata. Action Area I, West Bengal-700156 (Pan: Aabtt2222Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA & Tarak Nath JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Deb Kr. Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IT v. Hero Cycles [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC) wherein it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee. 18 Tata Medical Centre Trust AY 2016-17 13.2 In the case of UCO Bank [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the legal status of such circulars, observed thus (page 896): "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,…

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 928/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

…facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A.Y 2010-11 & 2012-13 which in turn relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 ignoring the fact that the said decision relates to banking companies with reference to accounting interest on cash basis on doubtful debts u/s 43D, whereas the assessee is not a banking company and hence the said section 43D and the said decision are not applicable in the present case? 3.8 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ca…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3299/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

…facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A.Y 2010-11 & 2012-13 which in turn relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 ignoring the fact that the said decision relates to banking companies with reference to accounting interest on cash basis on doubtful debts u/s 43D, whereas the assessee is not a banking company and hence the said section 43D and the said decision are not applicable in the present case? 3.8 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ca…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2779/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamar, D.R
Section 145Section 14ASection 92CSection 92F

…facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A.Y 2010-11 & 2012-13 which in turn relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 ignoring the fact that the said decision relates to banking companies with reference to accounting interest on cash basis on doubtful debts u/s 43D, whereas the assessee is not a banking company and hence the said section 43D and the said decision are not applicable in the present case? 3.8 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ca…

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5025/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000
Section 143(3)

…nue received by the Appellant may be from 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 v. CIT [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…

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5024/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999
Section 143(3)

…nue received by the Appellant may be from 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 v. CIT [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…