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

M/S Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 321/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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1997 (7) TMI 4 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vi) United Commercial Bank vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1999 (9) TMI 4 Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vii) Taparia Tools Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (3) TMI 853 - [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC) - Supreme Court of India (viii) Pt. Sheonath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 647 (All)] – Allahabad High Court (at page 926 of CIT(A) Order) (ix) S.R. Koshti vs. CIT [276 ITR 165] – Gujarat High Court (at…

Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1997 (7) TMI 4 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vi) United Commercial Bank vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1999 (9) TMI 4 Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vii) Taparia Tools Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (3) TMI 853 - [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC) - Supreme Court of India (viii) Pt. Sheonath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 647 (All)] – Allahabad High Court (at page 926 of CIT(A) Order) (ix) S.R. Koshti vs. CIT [276 ITR 165] – Gujarat High Court (at…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1997 (7) TMI 4 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vi) United Commercial Bank vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1999 (9) TMI 4 Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vii) Taparia Tools Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (3) TMI 853 - [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC) - Supreme Court of India (viii) Pt. Sheonath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 647 (All)] – Allahabad High Court (at page 926 of CIT(A) Order) (ix) S.R. Koshti vs. CIT [276 ITR 165] – Gujarat High Court (at…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1997 (7) TMI 4 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vi) United Commercial Bank vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1999 (9) TMI 4 Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vii) Taparia Tools Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (3) TMI 853 - [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC) - Supreme Court of India (viii) Pt. Sheonath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 647 (All)] – Allahabad High Court (at page 926 of CIT(A) Order) (ix) S.R. Koshti vs. CIT [276 ITR 165] – Gujarat High Court (at…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Abci Infrastructures Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1997 (7) TMI 4 - Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vi) United Commercial Bank vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1999 (9) TMI 4 Supreme Court; Other Citation: [1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC) – Supreme Court of India (vii) Taparia Tools Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (3) TMI 853 - [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC) - Supreme Court of India (viii) Pt. Sheonath Prasad Sharma vs. CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 647 (All)] – Allahabad High Court (at page 926 of CIT(A) Order) (ix) S.R. Koshti vs. CIT [276 ITR 165] – Gujarat High Court (at…

World Trade Park Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT - 5, Mumbai

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

ITA 1364/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleworld Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit -5 4Th Floor, Wtp, Jln Room No. 515, 5Th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Sahai.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dr.Kishordhule.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sahai.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271B

…be changed and you want to thrust a method of accounting on the assessee, by overriding the accepted discretion of the assessee and by arrogating the quasi-judicial power of the A O As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank v CIT 119991 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman World Trade Park Ltd., Mumbai. 601, the choice of method of accounting is of the assessee. The assessee has chosen/adopted the Project Completion Method of accounting and has been consistently following it over the years, It is not pen to the revenue to reject a method because according to the Assessing Officer another method is prefer…

DCIT Cent. Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1509/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit –Cc-8(3) बिधम/ M/S. 63 Moon Room No. 656 6Th Floor, Technologies India Ltd Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ft Tower, Cts No. 256- Mumbai- 400020. 257, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf5737C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact He Proportionate Claim Of The Premium On Zccbs Written During The Tenure Of Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds Was Is In Nature Of Interest?" 1.1 “Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting Disallowance Without Appreciating The Fact That The Claim

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 14A

…held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases that entries in books of accounts are no; determinative of its tax treatment: * Kedarnath Jute 82 ITR 363(SC) * Godhra Electricity 225 ITR 746(SC) * Bokara Steel 236 ITR 315(SC) * United Commercial Bank 240 ITR 355(SC) The assessee submits that adopting differing treatment in books of accounts and Income Tax Return cannot be equated with shifting stand. The assessee respectfully submits that it has not shifted its stand. What the assessee has done is computed its income as per specific provisions of law 8 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd. i…

Lifecell International Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3334/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

…Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin :-27-: ITA. No:3334/Chny/2019 Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such an option. However, it abandoned the same before reaching the crucial stage, inasmuch as, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, it chose to cla…

Dhnalaxmi Bank Limited, Trichur vs. The Pr CIT, Thrissur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 56/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(33)Section 14Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…ons of section 263 and issued a notice as to why the entire amount computed as disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot be disallowed. The assessee submitted that it is a well settled position in law as per the decision of Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank, 240 ITR 355 (SC) and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd., 264 ITR 545 that the dividend income received from securities forming part of stock & trade held in the regular course of business is exempt u/s. 10(33). The assessee further submitted that in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd., 372 ITR 694, the Delhi Hig…

Universal Music India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National Faceless Apeal Centre (NFAC), Dehi

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

ITA 945/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.945/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Plot No.6-62, Block G, Bkc (Opp. Trident Hotel) Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaacp-1985-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikash Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘ The Cit(A) ] Dated 25/03/2021, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Four Grounds. Grounds Of Appeal No.1 & 2 Are General In Nature. The Grievance Of Assessee In Ground No. 3 & 4 Of Appeal Is:

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. GurjarFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

…accounting consistently followed could not be rejected, unless it does not reflect true 3 profit. In support of his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) United Commercial Bank vs. CIT, 240 ITR 355(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd., 312 ITR 254(SC) (iii) CIT vs. Santram Mangatram, 275 ITR 312 (P&H) 3.1 In respect of ground No.4 of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that for the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee in Profit and Loss Account has not claimed any write of…

The Pathankot Hindu Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd., Pathankot vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pathankot

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 351/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.351/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Pathankot Hindu Urban Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-VI, Co-operative Bank Ltd. Pathankot. Dalhousie Road, Pathankot. [PAN: AAACT7869D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by None. Respondent by Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 13.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11.11.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals…

ITO-33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Vikram Baijnath Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ollowed cannot be disturbed. AO is bound to accept the method of accounting preferred by the assessee and he cannot impose another method on the assessee CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemical vs. UOI (2003) 261 ITR 275 (SC) (277) United Commercial Bank v/s. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355( SC) 34. Resjudicata Not applicable to income tax assessment. But there must be substantial ground for one ITO to differ from the view taken by another. (1991) 192 ITR 619 (Cal.) CIT vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. 35. Strictly speaking, resjudicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (4), Pune vs. M/S. Karan Sanran Associates, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 847/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Respondent: Shri Hitendra B. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 43ASection 43C

…o be substituted, unless the Department is able to show that the same distorts the profits for a particular year. The choice of method of accounting is always left to the assessee as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank Vs CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC). Thus, the CIT(A) had rightly applied the correct position of law to the facts of the present case and rightly held that it is not open to the AO to disturb the method of accounting and make addition. 5 11. However, the AO had no occasion to examine the correctness of amount of taxable profits offered under project completion method nor the…

M/S. Karan Sanran Associates, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (4), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 822/PUN/2019[2016-17 ( Q2/24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Respondent: Shri Hitendra B. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 43ASection 43C

…o be substituted, unless the Department is able to show that the same distorts the profits for a particular year. The choice of method of accounting is always left to the assessee as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank Vs CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC). Thus, the CIT(A) had rightly applied the correct position of law to the facts of the present case and rightly held that it is not open to the AO to disturb the method of accounting and make addition. 5 11. However, the AO had no occasion to examine the correctness of amount of taxable profits offered under project completion method nor the…

The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Rajkot Distt. Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 385/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Atri, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 6(1)(a)

…e effect that income arising from investments made by banking concerns was to be taxed under the head profits and gains of business and profession. 6. It was further pointed out that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355 (SC) had held that where the assessee for the purposes of its Income Tax return had valued its stock in trade at a different method as that followed for the purposes of its balance sheet prepared under the Banking laws and which method had been consistently accepted by the department for the last 30 years, no disallowance could be made on account…

Olectra Greentech Limited, Secunderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 63/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri L.P.Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…due is brought into credit before it is actually received; it brings into debit an expenditure f or which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. (see judgment of this Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355). Therefore, the accounting method followed by an assessee continuously f or 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 prof its. As stated, there is no finding given by the AO on the correctness of the accounting standard…

The Bharuch Dist.Central Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bharuch

ITA 641/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…the assessee in its Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2009. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction on account of diminution of value of securities on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of United Commercial Bank vs CIT (SC) 240 ITR 355 without appreciating that the assessee's case is on distinct fact inasmuch as the assessee was not consistently following such method of claiming deduction on account of diminution of value of securities which renders the case of the assessee obiter dictum. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) err…

The Bharuch Dist.Central Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bharuch

ITA 362/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…the assessee in its Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2009. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction on account of diminution of value of securities on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of United Commercial Bank vs CIT (SC) 240 ITR 355 without appreciating that the assessee's case is on distinct fact inasmuch as the assessee was not consistently following such method of claiming deduction on account of diminution of value of securities which renders the case of the assessee obiter dictum. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) err…

Bharuch District Central Co.-Op. Bank Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhaurch Range, Bharuch

ITA 1544/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…the assessee in its Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2009. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction on account of diminution of value of securities on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of United Commercial Bank vs CIT (SC) 240 ITR 355 without appreciating that the assessee's case is on distinct fact inasmuch as the assessee was not consistently following such method of claiming deduction on account of diminution of value of securities which renders the case of the assessee obiter dictum. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) err…