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)

Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 834/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43DSection 45Q

…SCC 548. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-co-operative banks submit that the issues involved in the above appeals are no more res integra in view of the decision rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeals of the Revenue by confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). There is no substantial question of law involved in these appeals and, thus, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 9. The In…

Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 833/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43DSection 45Q

…SCC 548. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-co-operative banks submit that the issues involved in the above appeals are no more res integra in view of the decision rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeals of the Revenue by confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). There is no substantial question of law involved in these appeals and, thus, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 9. The In…

Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 832/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.832, 833 & 834/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Circle I(1), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Tiruchirapalli. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaaat 5036 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43DSection 45Q

…SCC 548. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-co-operative banks submit that the issues involved in the above appeals are no more res integra in view of the decision rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeals of the Revenue by confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). There is no substantial question of law involved in these appeals and, thus, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 9. The In…

M/S. C.K. Cotspin Pvt. Ltd., Burhanpur vs. The DCIT, Khandwa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 816/IND/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

…M/s. C. K. Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT-Khandwa/ I.T.A. No.816/Ind/2014/A.Y.:11-12 Page 1 of 23 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,इ"दौर "यायपीठ ,इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE "ी सी. एम. गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना ,लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No.816/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12 M/s. C.K. Cotspin Pvt. vs. DCIT Khandwa Ltd. Badrapur Road Chowk Bazar, Burhanpur (MP) अपीलाथ" / अपीलाथ" /Appellant अपीलाथ" / अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ""यथ" /Respondent ""यथ" / ""यथ" / "था.ले.सं./PAN: AAECC 2503 P अपीलाथ…

ACIT, Davangere vs. M/S Chitradurga District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Chitradurga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Biju, JCIT

Section 145Section 271

…ances. He submitted that on pages-3 & 4 of his order, the ld. CIT(A) has re-produced the submissions made before him and thereafter, he decided the issue by following a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT reported in 237 ITR 889 without giving finding on facts as to whether this advance on which interest was not accounted for by the assessee are NPA or not. He submitted that under these facts, the order of the ld.CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the AO should be restored. He further submitted that the second issue involved is about deletion of addition made by th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5227/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: :Shri L.P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Sharma, Advocate &

Section 115Section 115W

…tion. The assessee company is engaged for erection, commissioning and installation of infrastructure telecommunication projects also. The Board’s circulars are also binding on the Revenue authorities as held by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT, 237 ITR 889 (SC) and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, 131 ITR 597. Questions Nos. 80 & 106 of the above circular help the assessee for computing FBT at lower rate of 5% instead of 20% on conveyance, travel and tour. In view of the finding of the ld. CIT(A) as 7 ITA No.5227/Del./2010 narrated above & circulars as noted above, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.…

Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3232/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ssessee company. He submitted that office memorandum issued by CBDT cannot be challenged in the court of law. 14.5. In the rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel reiterated his submissions and also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank 237 ITR 889 (SC) and also submitted that assessee is not rendering any security services but only acting as a conduit by collecting the impugned amount on behalf of the government and disbursing it for security purposes strictly in accordance with the rules, regulations and guidelines of the concerned authority and therefore, under these circumstances, the i…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 2760/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ssessee company. He submitted that office memorandum issued by CBDT cannot be challenged in the court of law. 14.5. In the rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel reiterated his submissions and also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank 237 ITR 889 (SC) and also submitted that assessee is not rendering any security services but only acting as a conduit by collecting the impugned amount on behalf of the government and disbursing it for security purposes strictly in accordance with the rules, regulations and guidelines of the concerned authority and therefore, under these circumstances, the i…

Sri Krishnendu Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1153/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…scrutiny of the assessee's case and completion of the assessment was not valid. 6. We find that the Hon'ble Chhatishgarh High Court in Sunita Finlease Ltd.'s case (supra) has also considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (1999) 237 ITR 889 and quoted from page 896 as under: "Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board thus has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 11…

DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Parinee Realty P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 6215/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…ITR 340  Woolcombens of India Ltd Vs. CIT(1982) 134 ITR 209(Cal)  East India Pharmaceutical. Works Ltd vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627  S.A.Builders vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Banswara Fabrics Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 398 (Raj)  UCO Bank vs CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC)  CIT vs Asian Hotels Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 490 (Delhi) 5.3.2. I find merit in the submission of the appellant that the no additions can be made on Notional income on the basis that the income should have been earned by the appellant. The appellant is not obliged to charge interest at a particular rate and no addition can be made on the basis t…

DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Parinee Realty P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 6214/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…ITR 340  Woolcombens of India Ltd Vs. CIT(1982) 134 ITR 209(Cal)  East India Pharmaceutical. Works Ltd vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627  S.A.Builders vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Banswara Fabrics Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 398 (Raj)  UCO Bank vs CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC)  CIT vs Asian Hotels Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 490 (Delhi) 5.3.2. I find merit in the submission of the appellant that the no additions can be made on Notional income on the basis that the income should have been earned by the appellant. The appellant is not obliged to charge interest at a particular rate and no addition can be made on the basis t…

Ms. Sai Astha Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4033/DEL/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 71

…the business carried out in earlier years against income from letting out such assets even though such income was assessable as income from other sources. We have further observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT[1999] 154 CTR 88/237 ITR 889 (SC) has held that the CBDT has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigor of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of a provision by issuing circulars from time to time. The power has been conferred to the CBDT by section 119 of the IT Act, 1961. It has further been noticed by us that the circular number categorically explains the amendment to se…

Ms. Sai Astha Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4032/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 71

…the business carried out in earlier years against income from letting out such assets even though such income was assessable as income from other sources. We have further observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT[1999] 154 CTR 88/237 ITR 889 (SC) has held that the CBDT has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigor of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of a provision by issuing circulars from time to time. The power has been conferred to the CBDT by section 119 of the IT Act, 1961. It has further been noticed by us that the circular number categorically explains the amendment to se…

Vipul P. Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7761/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vipul P. Dalal D C I T - 12(2) 11, Sadhana, ‘B’ Road Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 32, Churchgate M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aacpd1495Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Deepak N. KanabarFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member Shri Vipul P. Dalal D C I T - 12(2) 11, Sadhana, ‘B’ Road Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 32, Churchgate M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 PAN - AACPD1495Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Deepak N. Kanabar Respondent by: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind Date of Hearing: 19.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 23, Mumbai dated 07.10.2014 for A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The facts o…

ITO 27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Radium Creation, Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 220/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Goli Srinivas Rao

Section 10ASection 10BSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.220/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Income Tax Officer Tower no.6, Room no.419 ……………. Appellant Vashi Railway Station Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 v/s M/s. Radium Creation C–32, MIDC TTC Indl. Area ……………. Respondent Pawane, Navi Mumbai 400 705 PAN – AAFFR9494N ITA no.1161/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) M/s. Radium Creation (Now Radium Creation Ltd.) C–32, MIDC TTC Indl. Area ……………. Appellant Pawane, Navi Mumbai 400 705 PAN – AAFFR9494N v/s Income T…

Taurian Iron & Steel Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5920/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.B.DesaiFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…nd Co. Ltd. (143 ITR 29)(Kar). (xiii).Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (163 ITR 659) (xiv). CIT Vs. Precision Steel and Engg. Works (179 ITR 283)(P&H). (xv). East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. C.R Shekhar Reddy & Anr. (230 ITR 622)(Kar) (xvi). UCO Bank Ltd. VS. CIT (237 ITR 889)(SC). (xvii).Anjuman M.I1 Ghaswala (252 ITR 1)(SC) (xviii). K.P Varghese (131 ITR 597)(SC) (xix). Dhiren Chemicals (254 ITR 554) (xx). Navnitlal C. Jhaveri (56 ITR 198 at 203)(SC) (xxi). Ellerman Lines Ltd. Vs. CIT (82 ITR 913, at 920-21)(SC) , and thus submitted that as the A.O had erred in not following the CBDT Circular No. 5 (supra), therefor…

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl..C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 331/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, Mg Road, Bangalre-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaacv 4791 J & M/S. Vijaya Bank, Ho, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri P.Chandrashekar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca & Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Bank As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bangalore, Dated 28/11/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. Ita Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 2 Of 25 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Nationalized Bank Engaged In The Business Of Banking. It Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 29/9/2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.540,24,85,305/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Addl. Cit (Ltu), Bangalore, U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] Vide Order Dated 30/08/2011 At A Total Income Of Rs.1205,99,81,409/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances:

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan, CA and Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandrashekar, CIT(DR)

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

…trusted with the responsibility of executing the 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 (320 ITR 577) and UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) 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 that where the invest…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

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

ITA 318/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, Mg Road, Bangalre-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaacv 4791 J & M/S. Vijaya Bank, Ho, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri P.Chandrashekar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca & Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Bank As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bangalore, Dated 28/11/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. Ita Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 2 Of 25 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Nationalized Bank Engaged In The Business Of Banking. It Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 29/9/2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.540,24,85,305/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Addl. Cit (Ltu), Bangalore, U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] Vide Order Dated 30/08/2011 At A Total Income Of Rs.1205,99,81,409/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances:

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan, CA and Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandrashekar, CIT(DR)

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

…trusted with the responsibility of executing the 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 (320 ITR 577) and UCO Bank (237 ITR 889) 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 that where the invest…

M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 440/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Shri Gautam SwarupFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…the relevant material available on record. It is noticed that this issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in its order for the A.Ys. 2000-01 and 2002-03. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), the Tribunal held 33 that interest on sticky loans and advances could not be charged to tax. Similar view has been reiterated by the Tribunal in its later decision dated 2.5.2016 (supra) for the immediately preceding three years. In the absence of any distinguishing feature qua the facts for the instant year and the earlier years having…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi vs. Trans Asian Shipping Services (P) Ltd

C.A. No.-005869-005869 - 2016Supreme Court05 Jul 2016

Section 115VSection 14Section 2(17)

…of the Act have been held to be binding on the Department repeatedly by this Court in a series of judgments including Azadi Bachao Andolan v. Union of India2, Navnit Lal Jhaveri v. K.K. Sen3, and UCO Bank v. CIT4. 2 263 ITR 706 3 IAC 56 ITR 198 SC 4 237 ITR 889 SC Civil Appeal No. 5869 of 2016 & Anr. (arising out of SLP (C) No. 25251 of 2015 & Anr.) Page 30 of 31 Page 31 JUDGMENT 28. We, thus, agree with the decision of the High Court and find no merit in the instant appeals. The same are hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. .......................................C.J.I. (…

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

Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Trichy

M/S. C.K. Cotspin Pvt. Ltd., Burhanpur vs. The DCIT, Khandwa

ACIT, Davangere vs. M/S Chitradurga District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Chitradurga

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

Sri Krishnendu Chowdhury, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Parinee Realty P. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Parinee Realty P. Ltd, Mumbai

Ms. Sai Astha Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Ms. Sai Astha Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Vipul P. Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2), Mumbai

ITO 27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Radium Creation, Navi Mumbai

Taurian Iron & Steel Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl..C.I.T., Bangalore

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi vs. Trans Asian Shipping Services (P) Ltd