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.

How many judgments cite UCO Bank v. CIT?

486 judgments on BharatTax cite UCO Bank v. CIT (237 ITR 889), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does UCO Bank v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 148, Section 132, Section 250, Section 143(2).

UCO Bank v. CIT (237 ITR 889)

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2009-10] M/S Futuristic Sales [P] Ltd Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Flat No. 97, Sfs, First Floor Central Ashok Vihar, Phase – Iv Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No: Aaacf 6597 N [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…iewed by the Board of adversely.” 8.4.1 It is submitted, that instructions of CBDT are binding as has been held in the following judicial pronouncements: 56 ITR 198 (SC) Navnit Lai C. Javeri vs. K. K. Sen i) 82 ITR 913 (SC) Ellerman Linces Ltd. vs. C1T ii) 237 ITR 889 (SC) CIT vs. UCO Bank Ltd. iii) 247 ITR 128 (SC)Taper Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of iv) Central Excise 131 ITR 597 (SC) K. P. Varghese vs. ITO v) 183 ITR 1 (SC) Keshavji Ravji and Co. vs. CIT vi) 252 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala vii) It would be evident from the aforesaid instruction that surrender 8.5 by itself cannot be made a…

Navin Fluroine International Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.L.V. Prasad, DR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 32Section 35(1)(iv)

…puting his business profits of the year in which such expenditure is incurred" 23. Even, the ccircular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes are legally binding on the Revenue authorities as held by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889. Hence, we are of the view that this issue is allowable on merits and we accordingly, reverse the revision order of CIT on this issue. 24. Hence, on the above three issues, we reverse the revision order passed by CIT under section 263 of the Act but sustain the order on the issue of MAT Credit. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is p…

ITO 3(3)2, Mumbai vs. Shamrock Pharmachemi P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1774/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

For Respondent: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (CIT-

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 68

…beneficial to the Assessee. g) It is also settled law that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct taxes are binding upon the Income Tax Authorities u/s 119. The above contentions are supporting by the following judgments reported in: 55 ITR 198, 237 ITR 889, Based on the above submission and since the payment was subsequently remitted to the respective parties through Banking channels this clearly established the genuinely of the transaction and the Ld. Assessing Officer has not discharged his burden of proof.” Thus, in nut-shell the assessee prayed before learned CIT(A) that additions made on acco…

Kewal Kiran Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1850/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kewal Kiran Finance Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd., Kewal Kiran Estate, Vs. 12(3)(2), (Room No. 460/7, L.B. Patel Road, 147, 1St Floor, Aayakar Behind Tirupatiudyog, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020). 400063. Pan No. Aadck2902P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ronak Doshi & Ms. Ayushi Modani, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ecome sticky. In this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision in (i) CIT v. Templeton Asset Management (I) (P) Ltd. 340 ITR 279 (Bom) (2011), (ii) ACIT v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority ITAT(Kol) 34 CCH 71 (2012) and (iii) UCO Bank v. CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC) (1999). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It is a settled law that it is the real income and not the hypothetical income which is to be taxed. In the case of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (supra), it is…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paragon Xt, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 194C

…s and peculiarities of the situations. The decision very heavily relied upon by the first appellate authority in the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 was subsequently overruled in its land mark decision in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT 237 ITR 889. In this regard, we place reliance on the ratio laid down by various judicial authorities on the proposition that the income cannot be taxed on hypothetical basis, and it is only the real income that is to be brought to tax. In this behalf, we also rely, giving below summary of the ratio laid down, on the following decisions) CIT vs. Godhra Elect…

Ajay Shantilal Lalwani, HUF, Jalgaon vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 717/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.717/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the paper book, Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that this issue stands decided against the assessee. However, with due regard for the said judgment, Ld. Counsel argued relying on the ratio laid down in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT reported as 237 ITR 889 (SC) on one side and the CIT(A)’s order in the case of assessee’s sister concern where the issue was decided in favour of the assessee on similar facts, Ld. AR prayed for considering the above mentioned judgment/order and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 10. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue read out the contents of said pa…

Bucher Hydraulics Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 1650/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Smt Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Bucher Hydraulics Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Vs Income Tax Plot No.6, Sector-5 Circle-5 (1) Imt Manesar Gurgaon New Delhi Pan Aaecs5991H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 116Section 143Section 92

…n it is held that the authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the board. This is actually reiterated from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 = 2002 7IQL-697-SC-IT-LB. But at the same time the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the Circulars can be adverse to the IT Department but still are binding on the authorities of the Income Tax Departments but cannot be binding on the assessee if they are adverse to the assessee. These ratio laid down by the Apex Court has an impact on the arg…

Dy. C.I.T.2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Taral Modi, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 314/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153C

…to capital gain. It is only the real income which gets charged as income under the Income-tax Act as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) later superseded by the decision in UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) the concept of real income has certainly to be applied in judging what the assessee has received is income or not. Even if a credit entry is made in the account books, it may well be a hypothetical income. 1f it is not real income, the mere entry would not create liability. A liability to tax can arise only when, there is a legal right to re…

Dy. C.I.T.2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Suresh Atlani, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 186/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153C

…to capital gain. It is only the real income which gets charged as income under the Income-tax Act as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) later superseded by the decision in UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) the concept of real income has certainly to be applied in judging what the assessee has received is income or not. Even if a credit entry is made in the account books, it may well be a hypothetical income. 1f it is not real income, the mere entry would not create liability. A liability to tax can arise only when, there is a legal right to re…

Dy. C.I.T.2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 185/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit- 2(1), Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg). Atlani Bunglow, Khamardih Road, Vs. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153C

…to capital gain. It is only the real income which gets charged as income under the Income-tax Act as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) later superseded by the decision in UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) the concept of real income has certainly to be applied in judging what the assessee has received is income or not. Even if a credit entry is made in the account books, it may well be a hypothetical income. 1f it is not real income, the mere entry would not create liability. A liability to tax can arise only when, there is a legal right to re…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…on following decisions for the proposition that only real income can be taxed and not notional income. - Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); - Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. . CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC); - CIT vs. A. Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11(SC); - UCO Bank v. CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC); - Airport Authority of India v. CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del. )(FB); - CIT v. Motor Credit Co. P. Ltd. 127 ITR 572 (Mad.); - JCIT v. Pankaj Oxygen Ltd. 78 TTJ 119 (Nag.) - ACIT vs. Manick Chand Damani 72 TTJ 675 (Cal.). 13.1. After hearing both the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A), because the issue that on…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1899/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…Bank (supra) that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Karnataka Bank Vs. ACIT reported in (2013) 356 ITR 549 (Kar). Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the investments of the bank are stock in trade and are to be valued at lower of cost or market value and the resultant depreciation is an allowable deduction. The the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), was followed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the assessee's own case of Vijaya Bank in their…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 212/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst.Years :2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Income Tax, Urban Bank Ltd. Central Circle-1 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income Tax, 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Central Circle-1 Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR

Section 16Section 40

…g factors for allowance of any deduction. Any allowance on the bad loans has to be allowed as per the provisions of Income- tax Act and as per the circulars issued by CBDT from time to time as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of UCO Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889; State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT 158 ITR 102 and also in the case of Mercantile Bank Ltd Vs. CIT 283 ITR 84. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision or Delhi Special Bench in the case or New India Industries Lt 14 ITA Nos.211 & 212/Viz/2018 and CO Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 The Maharaja Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. Visakhapatnam Vs CLI…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst.Years :2012-13 & 2013-14) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Income Tax, Urban Bank Ltd. Central Circle-1 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Visakhapatnam Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.211 & 212 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Asst. Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income Tax, 49-9-14, Ganta Arcade Central Circle-1 Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaat4196K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR

Section 16Section 40

…g factors for allowance of any deduction. Any allowance on the bad loans has to be allowed as per the provisions of Income- tax Act and as per the circulars issued by CBDT from time to time as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of UCO Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889; State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT 158 ITR 102 and also in the case of Mercantile Bank Ltd Vs. CIT 283 ITR 84. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision or Delhi Special Bench in the case or New India Industries Lt 14 ITA Nos.211 & 212/Viz/2018 and CO Nos. 32 & 33/Viz/2018 The Maharaja Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. Visakhapatnam Vs CLI…

M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5690/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.35, Pace City-I, Sector-37, Vs Income Tax, Circle – 3 (1), Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No. Aaecs5991H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92C

…n it is held that the authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the board. This is actually reiterated from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 = 2002-TIQL-697-SC-IT-LB . But at the same time the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the Circulars can be adverse to the IT Department but still are binding on the authorities of the Income Tax Departments but cannot be binding on the assessee if they are adverse to the assessee. These ratio laid down by the Apex Court has an impact on the ar…

M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4237/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd.35, Pace City-I, Sector-37, Vs Income Tax, Circle – 3 (1), Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No. Aaecs5991H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92C

…n it is held that the authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the board. This is actually reiterated from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 = 2002-TIQL-697-SC-IT-LB . But at the same time the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the Circulars can be adverse to the IT Department but still are binding on the authorities of the Income Tax Departments but cannot be binding on the assessee if they are adverse to the assessee. These ratio laid down by the Apex Court has an impact on the ar…

Nokia Net Works Nokia Group Finland vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1964/DEL/2001[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 3

…t case the assessee had not even raised invoices for such interest. In such a scenario it cannot be said that interest on delayed payment accrued to the assessee. He also placed reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UCO bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had distinguished its order in case of State Bank of Travancore on the ground that the said judgement failed to consider the subsequent circular issued by CBDT which provided that “"interest in respect of doubtful debts credited to suspense account by the banking companies will be subjected to tax but interest…

Nokia Net Works Nokia Gruop Finland vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1963/DEL/2001[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 3

…t case the assessee had not even raised invoices for such interest. In such a scenario it cannot be said that interest on delayed payment accrued to the assessee. He also placed reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UCO bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had distinguished its order in case of State Bank of Travancore on the ground that the said judgement failed to consider the subsequent circular issued by CBDT which provided that “"interest in respect of doubtful debts credited to suspense account by the banking companies will be subjected to tax but interest…

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 3086/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…sident for services rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure". The appellant submits that the Circular issued by the Board is binding on the Assessing Officer in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (104- Taxman 547). The appellant therefore submits that provisions of 3. 195 on such payments of sales commission are not attracted at all. 10.6 The appellant most respectfully submits that the main objection of the Id. AO was that the said expenditure is required to be added u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act as per the Karnataka High Court decision in th…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

ITA 2957/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…sident for services rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure". The appellant submits that the Circular issued by the Board is binding on the Assessing Officer in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (104- Taxman 547). The appellant therefore submits that provisions of 3. 195 on such payments of sales commission are not attracted at all. 10.6 The appellant most respectfully submits that the main objection of the Id. AO was that the said expenditure is required to be added u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act as per the Karnataka High Court decision in th…

UCO Bank v. CIT

What is UCO Bank v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing UCO Bank v. CIT

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

Navin Fluroine International Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 7, Mumbai

ITO 3(3)2, Mumbai vs. Shamrock Pharmachemi P.Ltd, Mumbai

Kewal Kiran Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(2), Mumbai

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paragon Xt, New Delhi

Ajay Shantilal Lalwani, HUF, Jalgaon vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

Bucher Hydraulics Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

Dy. C.I.T.2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Taral Modi, Raipur (Cg)

Dy. C.I.T.2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Suresh Atlani, Raipur (Cg)

Dy. C.I.T.2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Abhishek Atlani, Raipur (Cg)

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. The Maharaja Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam

M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Bucher Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Nokia Net Works Nokia Group Finland vs. JCIT, New Delhi

Nokia Net Works Nokia Gruop Finland vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad