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

M/S. G E Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd vs. The ACIT Cir 6(3)

In the result appeal of the revenue as well as of the assessee

ITA 1942/MUM/2002[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2016AY 1998-1999
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

…unal and Hon’ble High Court because in the order of the Tribunal dated 21.6.2013 for asstt. year 2001-02 page 10 the Tribunal has confirmed the order of CIT(A) on this issue by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 which has been upheld by Hon’ble High Court by order dated 24.2.2014. 12. Replying to the above Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the order dated 24.2.2014 (supra) Hon’ble High Court has not recorded any findings on the issue involved in ground No. 3 of the assessee pertaining to interest on sticky loans and advances and the same…

The ACIT 6(3) vs. M/S. Ge Countrywide Consumery Financial Services Ltd

In the result appeal of the revenue as well as of the assessee

ITA 1689/MUM/2002[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jun 2016AY 1998-1999
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

…unal and Hon’ble High Court because in the order of the Tribunal dated 21.6.2013 for asstt. year 2001-02 page 10 the Tribunal has confirmed the order of CIT(A) on this issue by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 which has been upheld by Hon’ble High Court by order dated 24.2.2014. 12. Replying to the above Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the order dated 24.2.2014 (supra) Hon’ble High Court has not recorded any findings on the issue involved in ground No. 3 of the assessee pertaining to interest on sticky loans and advances and the same…

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6395/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak N. KanabarFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

…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 Àayakar Bhavan Vs. 32, Churchgate M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 PAN - AACPD1495Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Deepak N. Kanabar Respondent by: Shri Neil Philip Date of Hearing: 26.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 03.06.2016 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 02.07.2014 for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The facts of the c…

M/S Udbhav Constructions, Udupi vs. DCIT, Udupi

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

ITA 828/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 119Section 120Section 120(3)Section 124Section 124(3)Section 143(2)

…ITA.828/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Udbhav Constructions, 3rd floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant PAN : AABFU3330N v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT Heard on : 09.03.2016 Pronounced on : 30.03.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This is an appeal f…

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

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 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 Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 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…

Addl.Ci.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 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…

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

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 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 Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 601/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 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…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 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…

Addl.CIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 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. Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 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…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and appeals filed by the AO

ITA 8523/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Malathi Sridharan
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…ar is in force, it aids the uniform and proper 3 8523/M/11 & Ors.--Kotak Mahindra(7) 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…

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-3, Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and appeals filed by the AO

ITA 3114/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Malathi Sridharan
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…ar is in force, it aids the uniform and proper 3 8523/M/11 & Ors.--Kotak Mahindra(7) 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…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…allabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) (ii) Godhra Electricity Company Ltd vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) (iii) CIT V/s Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC) ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT (iv) UCO Bank V /s CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC) (v) Airports Authority of India V / s CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del)] It is reiterated that as a shareholder the PE and the Assessee cannot be taxed on the entire income earned by OMIFCO. The PE is only liable to tax in respect of the income distributed by OMIFCO to the shareholder. The share in the undistributed profits of OMIFCO is merely a book e…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…allabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) (ii) Godhra Electricity Company Ltd vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) (iii) CIT V/s Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC) ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT (iv) UCO Bank V /s CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC) (v) Airports Authority of India V / s CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del)] It is reiterated that as a shareholder the PE and the Assessee cannot be taxed on the entire income earned by OMIFCO. The PE is only liable to tax in respect of the income distributed by OMIFCO to the shareholder. The share in the undistributed profits of OMIFCO is merely a book e…

Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (TDS), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4011/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Dr. K.ShivramFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 194Section 194ASection 194CSection 201(1)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ „बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.4010&4011/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 & 2011-12) Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Vs. CIT(TDS), Charni Road, Ltd., Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Mumbai-400002 Complex, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACCN 2854 Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Dr. K.Shivram याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri N.P.Singh सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 02/12/2…

Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (TDS), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4010/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dr. K.ShivramFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 194Section 194ASection 194CSection 201(1)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ „बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.4010&4011/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 & 2011-12) Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Vs. CIT(TDS), Charni Road, Ltd., Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Mumbai-400002 Complex, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACCN 2854 Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Dr. K.Shivram याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri N.P.Singh सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 02/12/2…

Nec Hcl System Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we confirm the finding the of the CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance u/s 40a (i) of The Income tax Act of Rs

ITA 5497/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…rculars issued by CBDT are binding on Revenue authorities he relied up on decision of Honourable supreme court in case of Navnitlal C Jhaveri V ACIT 56 ITR 198 (SC) , Ellerman Lines Ltd V CIT 82 ITR 913 (SC ), K P verghese V ITO 131 ITR 597 and UCO bank V CIT 237 ITR 889. 5 | P a g e NEC HCL System Technologies Ltd. V ACIT ITA No 5497/Del /2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ACIT V NEC HCL System Technologies Ltd. ITA No 5804/Del/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 7. Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that this circular is issue in 2013 where as the appeal pertains to AY 2008-09 and therefore cannot be made applicable in case of the assessee. He…

ACIT, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1734/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan, CIT
Section 115Section 115WSection 37(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A.Nos.1638, 1639 & 1640/Mds/2014 Assessment Years:2003-04, 2006-07 & 2009-10 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., The Additional Commissioner of Erode Road, Karur 639 001. Vs. Income Tax, Range I, [PAN: AAACT3373J] Tiruchirapalli. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) I.T.A.Nos.1707, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1869 & 1734/Mds/2014 Assessment Years:1998-99, 02-03, 04-05,…