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 366,314 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

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1334/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…provisions of the Act. 9.6 The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889/104 Taxman 547 (SC) held that the directions of the RBI are only disclosed norms and they have nothing to do with computation of taxable income. The jurisdictional High Court further upheld the claim of the assessee- bank following the principle of consistency. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank (supra) only laid down principle t…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

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

ITA 753/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…provisions of the Act. 9.6 The jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Karnataka Bank (supra), after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 and UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889/104 Taxman 547 (SC) held that the directions of the RBI are only disclosed norms and they have nothing to do with computation of taxable income. The jurisdictional High Court further upheld the claim of the assessee- bank following the principle of consistency. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank (supra) only laid down principle t…

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 915/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl.No. ITA No. & Appellant Respondent Asst. Year 1. 915/Bang/2017 Vijaya Bank Joint Commissioner 2012-13 Head Office, of Income Tax, LTU, Central Accounts Bangalore. Dept., 41/2, M G Road, Bangalore-1 2. 845/Bang/2017 Joint Commissioner Vijaya Bank, M.G. 2012-13 of Income Tax, LTU, Road, Bangalore. Bangalore. 3. 1647/Bang/2016 Vijaya Bank, M.G. Joint Commissioner 2011-12 Road, Bangalore. of Income Tax, LTU, Bangalore. 4. 1651/Bang/2016 Joint Commissioner Vijaya Bank,…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 635/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -vs- JCIT, Range-35,Kolkata [PAN: ADQPM 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -vs- ACIT, Circle-35,Kolkata [PAN: ADQPM 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri P.J. Bhide, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 30.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh,…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 634/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -vs- JCIT, Range-35,Kolkata [PAN: ADQPM 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -vs- ACIT, Circle-35,Kolkata [PAN: ADQPM 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri P.J. Bhide, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 30.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh,…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 310/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -vs- JCIT, Range-35,Kolkata [PAN: ADQPM 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -vs- ACIT, Circle-35,Kolkata [PAN: ADQPM 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri P.J. Bhide, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 30.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh,…

Santech Solutons Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

…the matter cannot be also lost sight of. The Board has power to issue circulars under section 119 of the said Act. It is trite that circulars which are issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes are legally binding on the Revenue (see UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC)). Recently in CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC), the apex court following the said decision observed (page 15) : “It is true that by this press release the Board had interpreted the provisions of the Act in a particular manner. Be that as it may, we would like to make it clear that every clarificatory note or press release is…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1185/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012
Section 23

…n. Furthermore it is by now well settled in law that what is taxable under the Act is real income and not notional or hypothetical income. The following decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant is applicable to its case: 1. UCO Bank vs CIT (237 ITR 889) 2. CIT vs Shoorji Vallabhdas (46 ITR 144) 3. Godra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs CIT (225 ITR 746) I further find that this particular issue has been adjudicated upon by various Courts including the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Satya Co. Ltd. (75 Taxman 193) and Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Moni Kuma…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1184/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011
Section 23

…n. Furthermore it is by now well settled in law that what is taxable under the Act is real income and not notional or hypothetical income. The following decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant is applicable to its case: 1. UCO Bank vs CIT (237 ITR 889) 2. CIT vs Shoorji Vallabhdas (46 ITR 144) 3. Godra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs CIT (225 ITR 746) I further find that this particular issue has been adjudicated upon by various Courts including the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Satya Co. Ltd. (75 Taxman 193) and Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Moni Kuma…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1183/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010
Section 23

…n. Furthermore it is by now well settled in law that what is taxable under the Act is real income and not notional or hypothetical income. The following decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant is applicable to its case: 1. UCO Bank vs CIT (237 ITR 889) 2. CIT vs Shoorji Vallabhdas (46 ITR 144) 3. Godra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs CIT (225 ITR 746) I further find that this particular issue has been adjudicated upon by various Courts including the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Satya Co. Ltd. (75 Taxman 193) and Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Moni Kuma…

DCIT, Davangere vs. M/S Hiriyur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Harihara

In the result, the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 776/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep, CA
Section 119

…ich it has been held that income from NPA accrues only when actually received. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:- Page 3 of 4 “7. Again, the apex court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) held that, under the accounting practice, interest 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 considered it necessa…

Spe Networks-India Inc, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO stand dismissed

ITA 652/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
Section 254(1)Section 9

…may be from the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That Central Board of Direct Taxes 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 [1999ANIMAX 237 ITR 889 . In that judgment the issue was whether Circular of October 9, 1984, was inconsistent or whether there was contradiction in the circular and section 145 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that (page 901) : " In fact, the circular clarifies the way in which these amounts are to be treated under the accounting practice followed by t…

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Spe Networks India Inc., Mumbai

The appeals of the AO stand dismissed

ITA 511/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2006-07
Section 254(1)Section 9

…may be from the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That Central Board of Direct Taxes 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 [1999ANIMAX 237 ITR 889 . In that judgment the issue was whether Circular of October 9, 1984, was inconsistent or whether there was contradiction in the circular and section 145 of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court observed that (page 901) : " In fact, the circular clarifies the way in which these amounts are to be treated under the accounting practice followed by t…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere vs. Davangere District Central Co.Op Bank Ltd, Davangere

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1147/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.1147/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Davangere. …. Appellant. Vs. M/S. Davangere District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Devaraja Urs Layout, Davangere. ….. Respondent.

For Appellant: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…e assessee and it failed to account for. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) upheld this addition made by the Assessing Officer as he was of the view that the assessee had not followed the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC). 13.2.1 We have heard the rival submissions, perused and carefully considered the material on record including the judicial pronouncements cited. As submitted by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee, we find that this issue was considered and adjudicated upon by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case fo…

The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1716/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N K Pradhan, Am The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, Range- Neville House, J.N. Heradia Marg, 2(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Room No.561, Aayakar Pan No.Aaact2328K Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020

Section 144C(5)

…eing & Mfg. Co. Limited (A.Y:2012-13) and principal amount itself is doubtful of recovery, the question of taxing hypothetical interest does not arise. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC). In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment can be made in relation to interest @ 8.39% amounting to Rs.1,27,66,301/- in relation to non-interest bearing shareholder’s deposits amounting to Rs. 15,21,60,920/- with an associate company. We reverse the orders of…

ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Monsoon Trading Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 898/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anand MohanFor Respondent: Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar
Section 3(1)(o)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.898 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-2(2)(3) M/s. Monsoon Trading Co. Ltd. Room No. 542, 5th Floor Commerce Hous, 4th Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 3, Currimbhoy Road Mumbai 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai -38 PAN – AABCM4940K Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Anand Mohan Respondent by: Shri Aditya R. Ajgaonkar Date of Hearing: 13.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 10.10.2017 O R D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President This appeal has been f…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vaish Co-Operative Adarsh Bank Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3428/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…idelines and no interest would be accrued to the assessee in respect of the non performing assets and there is a series of case law on this aspect including the decisions reported in CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co., 46 ITR 144 (SC) (1962), UCO Bank vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC) (1999), CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Limited 330 ITR 440 (Del) (2011), CIT vs. Elgi Finance Limited 293 ITR 357 (Madras), CIT vs. Motor Credit Co. Pvt. Ltd. 127 ITR 572 (Madras) (1981) and CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited 309 ITR 335 (Uttarakhan). He further submitted that in respect of the AY 2009-10 in assessee’s own case a coordinate benc…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4588/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…(2)(b) of the Act unless tax avoidance motive is established. In support of his contentions the ld.AR placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) CBDT circular No 6-P-66 dated 6th July, 1968 (ii) CBDT circulars are binding on the Assessing Officer UCOBank 237 ITR 889 (SC) Paper Products Ltd 247 ITR 128 (SC) Indian Oil Corp. Ltd 267 ITR 272 (SC) Best Plastics (P.) Ltd 295 ITR 256 (Del) (iii) Bombay High Court decision in the case of Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt Ltd - 310 ITR 306 (iv) Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Triumph Securities Ltd -ITA No 2614/M/2004 and Edwise Consultants Pvt Ltd - ITA No 5376IMumI2…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4587/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…(2)(b) of the Act unless tax avoidance motive is established. In support of his contentions the ld.AR placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) CBDT circular No 6-P-66 dated 6th July, 1968 (ii) CBDT circulars are binding on the Assessing Officer UCOBank 237 ITR 889 (SC) Paper Products Ltd 247 ITR 128 (SC) Indian Oil Corp. Ltd 267 ITR 272 (SC) Best Plastics (P.) Ltd 295 ITR 256 (Del) (iii) Bombay High Court decision in the case of Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt Ltd - 310 ITR 306 (iv) Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Triumph Securities Ltd -ITA No 2614/M/2004 and Edwise Consultants Pvt Ltd - ITA No 5376IMumI2…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4586/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…(2)(b) of the Act unless tax avoidance motive is established. In support of his contentions the ld.AR placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) CBDT circular No 6-P-66 dated 6th July, 1968 (ii) CBDT circulars are binding on the Assessing Officer UCOBank 237 ITR 889 (SC) Paper Products Ltd 247 ITR 128 (SC) Indian Oil Corp. Ltd 267 ITR 272 (SC) Best Plastics (P.) Ltd 295 ITR 256 (Del) (iii) Bombay High Court decision in the case of Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt Ltd - 310 ITR 306 (iv) Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Triumph Securities Ltd -ITA No 2614/M/2004 and Edwise Consultants Pvt Ltd - ITA No 5376IMumI2…