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 366,005 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

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

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4585/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

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…

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

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4584/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

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…

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

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3518/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

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…

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

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3517/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…

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

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3516/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…

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

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3514/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

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…

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

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3513/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…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 931/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…to circular Nos.18 of 2015 dated 02/11/2015 and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka bank vs. CIT (356 ITR 539) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology (320 ITR 577) and UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) 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 RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company. Notwithstanding treatment given in the bo…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1493/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…to circular Nos.18 of 2015 dated 02/11/2015 and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka bank vs. CIT (356 ITR 539) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology (320 ITR 577) and UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) 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 RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company. Notwithstanding treatment given in the bo…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

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

ITA 1440/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…to circular Nos.18 of 2015 dated 02/11/2015 and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka bank vs. CIT (356 ITR 539) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology (320 ITR 577) and UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) 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 RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company. Notwithstanding treatment given in the bo…

Canara Bank vs. Addl.C.I, .T

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

ITA 979/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…to circular Nos.18 of 2015 dated 02/11/2015 and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka bank vs. CIT (356 ITR 539) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology (320 ITR 577) and UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) 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 RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company. Notwithstanding treatment given in the bo…

J.C.I.T vs. M/S Canara Bank

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

ITA 1035/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…to circular Nos.18 of 2015 dated 02/11/2015 and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka bank vs. CIT (356 ITR 539) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technology (320 ITR 577) and UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) 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 RBI can be allowed as a deduction while computing business income of a banking company. Notwithstanding treatment given in the bo…

West Gujarat Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 664/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…nterest in its books of accounts. The AO has assessed notional interest on the delayed payment of grants, whether this can be assessed as notional income or not/? This issue has been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), wherein it is held as under: - “In the premises, the majority decision in State Bank of Travancore's case (supra) cannot be looked upon as laying down that a circular which is properly issued under section 119 for proper administration of the Act and for relieving the rigour of too literal a construction of the law for the benefit of the a…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 634/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…nterest in its books of accounts. The AO has assessed notional interest on the delayed payment of grants, whether this can be assessed as notional income or not/? This issue has been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), wherein it is held as under: - “In the premises, the majority decision in State Bank of Travancore's case (supra) cannot be looked upon as laying down that a circular which is properly issued under section 119 for proper administration of the Act and for relieving the rigour of too literal a construction of the law for the benefit of the a…

Shekar Om Prakash Jalan, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6664/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6664/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Shekar Om Prakash Jalan, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O-Prakash K. Prakash, B-1, Ward-31(2), Sagar Apartments, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj2163H Ita No. 6665/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Shalabh Om Prakash Jalan, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O-Prakash K. Prakash, B-1, Ward-31(2), Sagar Apartments, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj2160E Assessee By : Sh. Saubhagya Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2017 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Saubhagya Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ities, the scope could not have been expanded without the permission of the Commissioner. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the ITA Nos. 6664 & 6665/Del/2016 4 Shekar & Shalabh Om Prakash Jalan case of UCO Bank reported at 237 ITR 889. The ld. CIT(A), however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee by observing in para 5.2.1.4 of the impugned order which read as under: “5.2.1.4 I find that the case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of CASS which is also known as Computer Assisted Scrutiny System. The case was taken for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2)…

DCIT, Shimoga vs. M/S Visl Employees Co-Op Bank Ltd., Bhadravathi

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

ITA 1267/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath Kalmath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jeean J Neetalgi, Standing Counsel

…DR of the revenue supported the assessment order, whereas the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). He also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT 237 ITR 889(SC). He also submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Canfin Homes in ITA No.801 of 2006(Kar.) is also followed by the ld. CIT(A). A specific query was raised by the Bench asking the learned DR of the revenue as to whether there is any difference in facts in the present case and in these ca…

Radhey Construction Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 822/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 40A(3)

…the sum so receive or receivable shall be the annual value. The circular issue by the board are of binding nature particular those which given relief to the assessee which is so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following case:- UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999)237 ITR 889 CBDT Circulars-Binding nature- Relaxation of law- CBDT has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure fair enforcement of its provisions by issuing circulars- Circulars contemplated in s. 119(2) (a) cannot be adverse to the assessee- power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management of work of assessmen…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

ITA 1929/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: R P Meena
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…ied circumstances. So long as the circular is in force, it aids the uniform and proper administration and application of the provisions of the Act.(Refer to UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 4 SCC 599)." 18. In case of UCO Bank v/s. Commissioner ofIncome Tax reported in 237 ITR 889 the Supreme Court in connection with effect of circulars issued by the Board under section 119 of the Act observed: "Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board, thus, has powers, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its p…

DCIT, Shimoga vs. M/S City Co-Operative Bank, Shimoga

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 790/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri S. Krishnaswamy, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 145(1)

…ished hope of recovery in the suspense account. Extension of the concept of real income to this field to negate accrual after the amount had become payable is contrary to the postulates of the Act. 7. Again the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 / 104 Taxman 547 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 considere…

DCIT, Shimoga vs. M/S City Co-Operative Bank, Shimoga

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 789/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri S. Krishnaswamy, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 145(1)

…ished hope of recovery in the suspense account. Extension of the concept of real income to this field to negate accrual after the amount had become payable is contrary to the postulates of the Act. 7. Again the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 / 104 Taxman 547 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 considere…