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

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) 2(1), 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 4997/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…

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) RG. 2, 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 4996/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…

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Usa vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 863/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…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…

M/S Siddaganga Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tumkur

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143Section 37

…n performing asset then the assumption is that it is not yielding any revenue and therefore, the question of showing that revenue and paying tax would not arise. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'UCO BANK VS. CIT', 237 ITR 889 SC, 'CIT VS. CANFIN Page 10 of 11 HOMES LTD.', 347 ITR 382 (KAR), CIT VS. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK IN ITA NO.471/2013 (KAR), CIT VIS THE URBAN CO- OPERATIVE BANK IN SLP NO.1066/2015 (SC) and 'UCO BANK VS. CIT', 360 ITR 567 (KOL). 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the…

Dilip Kumar Panja, Paschim Medinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward-39(3), Medenipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 520/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(2)Section 144

…ritten approval of ld. PCIT, assessment order deserves to be cancelled for the sake of justice. In the ground, the assessee also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) and the case of M/s. Crystal Phosphate Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in ITA No. 3630/Del/2009. No ground on merit was taken by the assessee. When the matter was listed for adjudication before the Page 2 of 7 I.T.A. Nos.: 519 & 520/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kumar Panja ld. CIT(A), after examining the details filed by the assessee as w…

Dilip Kumar Panja, Paschim Medinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward-39(3), Medenipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 519/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(2)Section 144

…ritten approval of ld. PCIT, assessment order deserves to be cancelled for the sake of justice. In the ground, the assessee also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) and the case of M/s. Crystal Phosphate Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in ITA No. 3630/Del/2009. No ground on merit was taken by the assessee. When the matter was listed for adjudication before the Page 2 of 7 I.T.A. Nos.: 519 & 520/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kumar Panja ld. CIT(A), after examining the details filed by the assessee as w…

M/S. the Davangere Harihar Urban Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Davangere vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

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

ITA 2609/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. Georgeassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 145Section 145(1)Section 234

…e' when it remains unpaid for 30 days beyond the due date. Interest on NPAs should not be booked as income if such interest has remained outstanding for more than six months on and from 31-3-1995. [Para 6] The Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 / 104 Taxman 547 held that under the accounting practice, interests, which is transferred to the suspense account and not brought to the profit and loss account of the company, is not treated as income. The question whether in a given case such 'accrual' of interest is doubtful or not, may also be problematic. If, therefore, the Board has conside…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. M/S. Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2428/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…dated November 2, 2015* and the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 104 Taxman 547/237 ITR 889 (SC) it has been held as under : "9.5 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The short issue in this ground of appeal is whether fall in value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of the RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company. Notwithstanding the treatment giv…

Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2400/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…dated November 2, 2015* and the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 104 Taxman 547/237 ITR 889 (SC) it has been held as under : "9.5 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The short issue in this ground of appeal is whether fall in value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of the RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company. Notwithstanding the treatment giv…

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2641/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…dated November 2, 2015* and the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 104 Taxman 547/237 ITR 889 (SC) it has been held as under : "9.5 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The short issue in this ground of appeal is whether fall in value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of the RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company. Notwithstanding the treatment giv…

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2962/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee after referring the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Uco Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 and the CBDT Circular No. 1186 dated 20.06.1978. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. counsel has referred decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 vide ITA No. 2594/Mum/2019 wherein the similar claim of the assessee was allowed. On the other hand ld. D.R relied on…

Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee after referring the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Uco Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 and the CBDT Circular No. 1186 dated 20.06.1978. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. counsel has referred decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of the assessee itself pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 vide ITA No. 2594/Mum/2019 wherein the similar claim of the assessee was allowed. On the other hand ld. D.R relied on…

Income Tax Officer Ward- Seoni, Seoni vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

…ce of the recognition of income. Reference in this context may be made to AS9 by ICAI, the regulatory accounting body in India. The law in the matter is well-settled, and for which one may refer to the decisions by the Apex Court, as in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC); United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355; Godra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC), to cite some, also relied upon by the assessee, wherein it stands clarified that accrual of income is to be judged in the light of the reality of the situation. There is thus no question of accrual of such interest income. (AYs. 2009…

Income Tax Officer Ward- Seoni, Seoni vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

…ce of the recognition of income. Reference in this context may be made to AS9 by ICAI, the regulatory accounting body in India. The law in the matter is well-settled, and for which one may refer to the decisions by the Apex Court, as in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC); United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355; Godra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC), to cite some, also relied upon by the assessee, wherein it stands clarified that accrual of income is to be judged in the light of the reality of the situation. There is thus no question of accrual of such interest income. (AYs. 2009…

Income Tax Officer Ward- Seoni, Seoni vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

…ce of the recognition of income. Reference in this context may be made to AS9 by ICAI, the regulatory accounting body in India. The law in the matter is well-settled, and for which one may refer to the decisions by the Apex Court, as in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC); United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355; Godra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC), to cite some, also relied upon by the assessee, wherein it stands clarified that accrual of income is to be judged in the light of the reality of the situation. There is thus no question of accrual of such interest income. (AYs. 2009…

ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Nimbeon Intertechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 2833/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2832 & 2833/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा"", एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2832 & 2833/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Cross-Objection Nos.21 & 22/Chny/2020 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, v. M/s.Nimbeon – Corporate Ward-4(2), Intertechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-34. No.37, Second Cross Street, East Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030.…

ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Nimbeon Intertechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 2832/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2832 & 2833/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा"", एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2832 & 2833/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Cross-Objection Nos.21 & 22/Chny/2020 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, v. M/s.Nimbeon – Corporate Ward-4(2), Intertechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-34. No.37, Second Cross Street, East Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030.…

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

…nison with this submission of the learned Solicitor General. This Court in a catena of cases has held that the circulars of the central board of direct taxes are legally binding on the revenue. (See UCO Bank v. Page 18 of 23 Commissioner of Income-tax (1999) 237 ITR 889). Since these circulars are beneficial to the assesses, such benefit can be conferred also on the assesses who have approached the settlement commission u/s. 245C of the Act on such terms and conditions as contained in the circular. In our opinion, it is for this purpose that Section 245F of the Act has empowered the settlement commission to exer…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…culars of the board. Further in the following cases the Courts have held that circulars issued by the Board are binding: - (i) Navnit Lal C Javeri Vs. Sen (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) (ii) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (iii) UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) (iv) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachoo Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706(SC) 22. Although, ld CIT-DR has stressed on the fact that the presumption of correctness is attached to the statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act and even the A.O. has categorically mentioned that page No. 1 to 4 of Annexure-A2 were found and seized during the course of searc…

Gerah Entrprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 740/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Gerah Enterprises P. Ltd. Tax, Range-20, 1, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Room No.611, 6Th Floor, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (2), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecg7138C

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. Chouhan, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ment Identification Number ] that is in contravention of circular no. 19/2019 and therefore, such an order bad in law. He relied on the decision of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] Gerah Enterprises Pvt. Ltd; AY 15-16 and UCO bank Vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) stating that CBDT circular are binding by Income tax authorities. b. Learned PCIT has not come to a definite conclusion that the order of ld AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He submitted that the learned PCIT has failed to show that how the order passed by learned Assessing Officer was erroneous. c. Show caus…