United Commercial Bank v. CIT

240 ITR 355Supreme Court of India1999#245 most cited

What is United Commercial Bank v. CIT authority for?

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

314

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

United Commercial Bank v. CIT · Section 145 · Section 37(1) · mercantile system of accounting · accrual basis deduction · unascertained liability · provision for expenses · deferred quantification · disputed liability · business deductions

Also reported as

156 CTR 380

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 145Section 36(1)(viii)Section 10(34)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 145(1)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)interest on securitiesmercantile system of accountingsection 10(34)profits and gains of business or professionsection 145section 36(1)disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing United Commercial Bank v. CIT

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 460/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…it was held that investments in Government securities which are classified as HTM cannot be considered as stock-in-trade and therefore, depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed. In the Apex court in the case of UCO Banks Vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that the value of the securities at cost or market value whichever is less should be accepted for income tax even if the banks in their books do not value on that basis. Therefore, it is an accepted proportionate that investments by banks to comply with SLR investments would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value of th…

The Andhra Pradesh State Co Operative Bank Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…it was held that investments in Government securities which are classified as HTM cannot be considered as stock-in-trade and therefore, depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed. In the Apex court in the case of UCO Banks Vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that the value of the securities at cost or market value whichever is less should be accepted for income tax even if the banks in their books do not value on that basis. Therefore, it is an accepted proportionate that investments by banks to comply with SLR investments would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value of th…

The Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1796/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…it was held that investments in Government securities which are classified as HTM cannot be considered as stock-in-trade and therefore, depreciation in value of such securities cannot be allowed. In the Apex court in the case of UCO Banks Vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 has held that the value of the securities at cost or market value whichever is less should be accepted for income tax even if the banks in their books do not value on that basis. Therefore, it is an accepted proportionate that investments by banks to comply with SLR investments would constitute their stock in trade and depreciation in value of th…

Kokan Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhrikokan Mercantile Co-Op V/S. Ast. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. बनाम Income-Tax, Circle 20(2), 1St Floor, Habour Crest, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Mazgaon, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400010 Parel, Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaak2527P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 250

…he question before the CIT(A) is whether a particular item of investment in securities as per the RBI guidelines constitute stock-in-trade or capital assets and after considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in United Commercial Bank vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 and considered the investment made in security as a stock-in- trade. 31.The CIT(A) further relied upon the order of co-ordinate bench in case titled as ACIT vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. reported in 2011-TIOL 35 and deleted the addition. 32. We have carefully considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the material available…

Jyoti Goyal, Bhopal vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

ITA 380/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

…ous decision in case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (S.C.), Sutlej Cotton Mills v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (S.C.), Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. V. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (S.C.) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355 (S.C.). Thus, mere existence and audit of books of accounts does not mean the same are to be accepted as they are. 7.3.3 In this case, the veracity of the books is highly questionable when the appellant has no audited books and in fact, is declaring income u/s 44AD. The other argument is that the AO did not reject the books. There is no need for…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…relevant accounting year is an allowable deduction even though its actual quantification and discharge is deferred to a future date: a) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC) b) Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC) c) United Commercial Bank v. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) d) Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC) e) Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320 ITR 561 f) CIT v Vinitec Corpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi) g) National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. JCIT : 98 ITD 278 (Hyd. ITAT) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. 312…

Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT-Corp Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s. Bank of Baroda reported in 262 ITR 334, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered this aspect and allowed the claim of deduction on account of depreciation in the value of investment by observing as under:- "In the case of UCO Bank v. CIT 1999] 240 ITR 355, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that where the market value of shares and securities had fallen below the cost before the date of valuation and where on the date of valuation, the market value is less than the actual cost, then the Appellant was entitled to value the articles at market price and the Appellant was entitled to claim the l…

ACIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8688/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, Special Range-7, Accounts & Audit New Delhi Department, Bank House 1St Floor, 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacp1206G Assessee By : Shri Vivek Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…antile system, they are entitled to show his real income by taking into account market value of such investments in arriving at real taxable income. All the aspects argued by the Ld. DR were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) and were held in favour of the assessee. The decision in Southern Technologies Ltd (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. 13. There is consistency of the facts on this aspect quite for a long time and all possible arguments have come before the adjudicatory authorities. On a careful consideration of the matter in the light of t…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

…he method of accounting lies with the assessee and the valid method followed by the assessee can be disregarded only if the same does not disclose the true and proper income over the period, 3.7 The Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT (240 ITR 355) has held that it is open to the assessee to value the investments at cost or market whichever is lower and the method of accounting adopted by the taxpayer consistently and ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 regularly cannot be discarded by the Departmental authorities. The Apex Court has also held that for purpose of income tax whichever method is ad…

DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Credit Suisse Finanace (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2006/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.2006/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13) आअसं.2007/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) आअसं.2001/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Credit Suisse Finance (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9Th Floor, Ceejay House, Plot F, Shivsagar Estate, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. Pan: Aaacb-3741-N ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Revenue By : Shri H.M.Bhatt Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala With Shri Paras Savla & Shri Harsh Savla सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala with Shri Paras Savla &For Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

…t in the case of Chainrup Sampatram (28 ITR 481)(SC) to submit that the stock in trade has to be valued at cost or market value, whichever is less. It was submitted that the above said principle was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) and it was further held that the loss arising on account of valuation of closing stock is allowable as deduction. The above said decision was followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334). The Ld A.R submitted that the RBI Circular (Paper book pages 248, 250 and 256 of AY 2010- 11) also requires that secur…

DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Credit Suisse Finance (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2001/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.2006/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2012-13) आअसं.2007/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) आअसं.2001/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Credit Suisse Finance (India) Pvt. Ltd. 9Th Floor, Ceejay House, Plot F, Shivsagar Estate, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. Pan: Aaacb-3741-N ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Revenue By : Shri H.M.Bhatt Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala With Shri Paras Savla & Shri Harsh Savla सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala with Shri Paras Savla &For Respondent: Shri H.M.Bhatt

…t in the case of Chainrup Sampatram (28 ITR 481)(SC) to submit that the stock in trade has to be valued at cost or market value, whichever is less. It was submitted that the above said principle was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (240 ITR 355)(SC) and it was further held that the loss arising on account of valuation of closing stock is allowable as deduction. The above said decision was followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda (262 ITR 334). The Ld A.R submitted that the RBI Circular (Paper book pages 248, 250 and 256 of AY 2010- 11) also requires that secur…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of It (OSD)10(2)(2)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5764/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…redit before it is actually received; it brings into debit an expenditure for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. (See judgment of this Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 380 : (1999) 240 ITR 355 (SC). Therefore, the accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a given period of time needs to be presumed to be correct till the AO comes to the conclusion for reasons to be given that the system does not reflect true and correct profits. As stated, there is no finding given by the AO on the correctness of the Accounting Standar…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5260/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…redit before it is actually received; it brings into debit an expenditure for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. (See judgment of this Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 380 : (1999) 240 ITR 355 (SC). Therefore, the accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a given period of time needs to be presumed to be correct till the AO comes to the conclusion for reasons to be given that the system does not reflect true and correct profits. As stated, there is no finding given by the AO on the correctness of the Accounting Standar…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pfizer Limited v. ACIT- Special Range 23 (Earlier known as Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now the DCIT-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 PAN: AAACP3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT- LTU v. M/s. Wyeth Limited 28th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly known as wyeth Lederle Ltd) RBC Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumb…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ere is no provision of law or principle according to which the assessee could be compelled to adopt either the average cost for all the items or the market rate for all the items. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) has held that there is no such question of following two different methods for valuing its stock-in-trade (investments) because bank was required to prepare balance sheet in the prescribed form and it had no option to change it and for the purpose of income-tax, what is taxed is the real income which is to be deduced on the basis of the acco…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ere is no provision of law or principle according to which the assessee could be compelled to adopt either the average cost for all the items or the market rate for all the items. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) has held that there is no such question of following two different methods for valuing its stock-in-trade (investments) because bank was required to prepare balance sheet in the prescribed form and it had no option to change it and for the purpose of income-tax, what is taxed is the real income which is to be deduced on the basis of the acco…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…customer account still appears in the branch books. In both cases, the actual amount written off is reduced from the loans and advances of the bank. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) UCO Bank v. CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC) Southern Technologies v. CIT, 352 ITR 577(SC) Canara Bank v. DCIT (2022) (1) TMI 124 (Bangalore Trib) in assessee’s own case. 11. It was submitted that the bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance in the provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction as held in the following cases:- ITA No…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…customer account still appears in the branch books. In both cases, the actual amount written off is reduced from the loans and advances of the bank. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) UCO Bank v. CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC) Southern Technologies v. CIT, 352 ITR 577(SC) Canara Bank v. DCIT (2022) (1) TMI 124 (Bangalore Trib) in assessee’s own case. 11. It was submitted that the bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance in the provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction as held in the following cases:- ITA No…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…customer account still appears in the branch books. In both cases, the actual amount written off is reduced from the loans and advances of the bank. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) UCO Bank v. CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC) Southern Technologies v. CIT, 352 ITR 577(SC) Canara Bank v. DCIT (2022) (1) TMI 124 (Bangalore Trib) in assessee’s own case. 11. It was submitted that the bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance in the provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction as held in the following cases:- ITA No…

Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…he action of the AO in disallowing loss claimed on treating investments as stock-in-trade by drawing the investment trading account of Rs.775,96,55,047. The Tribunal held "16. We have heard both sides and find that the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank in 240 ITR 355 has held as under : "In our view, as stated above, consistently for 30 years, the assessee was valuing the stock-in- trade at cost for the purpose of statutory balance-sheet, and for the income-tax return, valuation was at cost or market value, whichever was lower. That practice was accepted by the Department and there was no justifiable reason f…