Vijaya Bank v. CIT

323 ITR 166Supreme Court of India2010#186 most cited

What is Vijaya Bank v. CIT authority for?

The amount of provision for bad and doubtful debts is reduced from loans for tax purposes.

384

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vijaya Bank v. CIT · section 36(1)(vii) · section 36(1)(viia) · bad debts · provision for bad and doubtful debts · deduction for bad debts · written off bad debts · reduction from loans

Also reported as

190 Taxmann 257231 CTR 209

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 115JBSection 37(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 10(34)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(vii)section 36(2)section 36(1)(viii)section 115jb(2)additional depreciationsection 10(34)book profitssection 41section 115j

Judgments citing Vijaya Bank v. CIT

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…s filed the following additional grounds vide application dated 29/09/2018: “1. The appellant submits that it is entitled to a deduction for write-off of bad debts under section 36 (1)(vii) as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (323 ITR 166). It is submitted that necessary directions may be given to the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of write-off bad debts. 2. The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter and add to the grounds of appeal.” 25.1. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid additional grounds are purely legal in nature and do not require any fresh investigation…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…s filed the following additional grounds vide application dated 29/09/2018: “1. The appellant submits that it is entitled to a deduction for write-off of bad debts under section 36 (1)(vii) as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (323 ITR 166). It is submitted that necessary directions may be given to the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of write-off bad debts. 2. The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter and add to the grounds of appeal.” 25.1. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid additional grounds are purely legal in nature and do not require any fresh investigation…

THE MODAS NAGARIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,ARVALLI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1573/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1573/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Modasa Nagarik Sahakari The Acit बनाम/ Bank Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Sutharwada, Nr.Nagar Palika Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Po: Modasa – 383 315 Ahmedabad-380 015 Dist. Aravalli (S.K.) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaat 0525 G (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

…ion for doubtful debts of Rs. 27,42,118 on the ground that the assessee has not made any such provision in as much as the assessee has made the provision and that such provision is allowable as deduction in view of Supreme Court decision in case of Vijya Bank 323 ITR 166.” 3. Ground No.1:- Vide Ground No.1, the assessee has agitated against the confirmation of disallowance of expenditure of Rs.53,62,300/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the ground that it is not debited to the Profit & Loss Account (P&L A/c.), but was deducted out of the reserves created from appropriation of profits. 4. The Ld. Counsel f…

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

ITA 5417/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…2 of the assessment order, the ld. A.O. disallowed the claim stating that deduction is available on actual bad debts written off and not on provision. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble SC in Vijaya Bank –vs.- CIT 323 ITR 166 (SC) & Hon’ble Karnataka HC in CIT –vs.- Yokogawa India Ltd. (2012) 204 Taxman 305 (Kar.). Upon considering the same, ld. CIT(A) proceeded to delete the impugned addition. 36. Per Contra, the ld. CIT-DR argued in favour of the decision of ld. Assessing Officer. ITA Nos. 5416 & 5417/Del/2017 along with other cases 37. The ld. Counsel for the ass…

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

ITA 5416/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…2 of the assessment order, the ld. A.O. disallowed the claim stating that deduction is available on actual bad debts written off and not on provision. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble SC in Vijaya Bank –vs.- CIT 323 ITR 166 (SC) & Hon’ble Karnataka HC in CIT –vs.- Yokogawa India Ltd. (2012) 204 Taxman 305 (Kar.). Upon considering the same, ld. CIT(A) proceeded to delete the impugned addition. 36. Per Contra, the ld. CIT-DR argued in favour of the decision of ld. Assessing Officer. ITA Nos. 5416 & 5417/Del/2017 along with other cases 37. The ld. Counsel for the ass…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LTD., DALMIAPURAM

ITA 3158/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…2 of the assessment order, the ld. A.O. disallowed the claim stating that deduction is available on actual bad debts written off and not on provision. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble SC in Vijaya Bank –vs.- CIT 323 ITR 166 (SC) & Hon’ble Karnataka HC in CIT –vs.- Yokogawa India Ltd. (2012) 204 Taxman 305 (Kar.). Upon considering the same, ld. CIT(A) proceeded to delete the impugned addition. 36. Per Contra, the ld. CIT-DR argued in favour of the decision of ld. Assessing Officer. ITA Nos. 5416 & 5417/Del/2017 along with other cases 37. The ld. Counsel for the ass…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LTD., DALMIAPURAM

ITA 3157/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…2 of the assessment order, the ld. A.O. disallowed the claim stating that deduction is available on actual bad debts written off and not on provision. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble SC in Vijaya Bank –vs.- CIT 323 ITR 166 (SC) & Hon’ble Karnataka HC in CIT –vs.- Yokogawa India Ltd. (2012) 204 Taxman 305 (Kar.). Upon considering the same, ld. CIT(A) proceeded to delete the impugned addition. 36. Per Contra, the ld. CIT-DR argued in favour of the decision of ld. Assessing Officer. ITA Nos. 5416 & 5417/Del/2017 along with other cases 37. The ld. Counsel for the ass…

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 1550/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

…led to prove that the debts have become bad. On appeal before ld CIT(A) entire claim of the assessee was allowed. The ld CIT(A) while allowing relief to the assessee followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in TRF Limited (230 CTR 14) and Vijaya bank (323 ITR 166-SC) and held that after 01.04.1989, if the debts have been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee it will suffice for claiming bed debts. Thus, the revenue has challenged the action of ld CIT(A) before Tribunal. 29. The ld CIT -DR for the revenue submits that fulfilment of requisite conditions is not satisfied for claiming…

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 4418/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

…led to prove that the debts have become bad. On appeal before ld CIT(A) entire claim of the assessee was allowed. The ld CIT(A) while allowing relief to the assessee followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in TRF Limited (230 CTR 14) and Vijaya bank (323 ITR 166-SC) and held that after 01.04.1989, if the debts have been written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee it will suffice for claiming bed debts. Thus, the revenue has challenged the action of ld CIT(A) before Tribunal. 29. The ld CIT -DR for the revenue submits that fulfilment of requisite conditions is not satisfied for claiming…

STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT - 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…rightly claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act as the same was netted off against Sundry Debtors / Advances and therefore it amounted to actual write off of Bad debts. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs CIT (323 ITR 166) wherein it was held 3 Star Paper Mills Limited that, the provision account so created and debited, which was simultaneously reduced from the amount of debts/advances and therefore the provision account stood obliterated, would tantamount to actual write off for the purposes of claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of Act. The ld AR also r…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 542/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Modi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 144BSection 147Section 250

…d. [2016] 74 taxmann.com 163 (Guj.) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 17 taxmann.com 15/204 Taxman 305 (Kar.) (para 4), v. CIT v. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 124/[2014] 220 Taxman 1 (Kar.) (para 4), vi. Vijaya Bank v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166/190 Taxman 257 12 Assessment Year 2014-2015 (SC) (para 4), vii. CIT v. ILPEA Paramount (P.) Ltd. [2010] 192 Taxman 65/[2011] 336 ITR 54 (Delhi) (para 15) and viii. Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577/187 Taxman 346 (SC) (para 16). 9. We note that after considering the aforesaid judgments rendered in the above case laws, the…

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3623/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(4)(vii)

…said provision was reduced from the respective assets for which it was created, however, no deduction was claimed in respect of said provision. The learned CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, reported in (2010) 323 ITR 166 and the decision of the Tribunal rendered in assessee's own case directed the AO to allow the deduction in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts and advances made by the assessee during the year under consideration. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us.\n27. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the…

LUPIN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

…Sheet would amount to actual write off of bad debts and accordingly, it would not be hit by clause (i) of Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB of the Act. Both the High Courts have 14 followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (323 ITR 166)(SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the provisions of sec. 36(1) (vii) r.ws 36(2) of the Act in the context of a banking company. Under the provisions of sec. 36(1) (vii) of the Act, an assessee is eligible to claim deduction of amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.…

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENT LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 5510/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 14ASection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 5510/Mum/2012 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Bajaj Holding & Income-Tax, Investment Ltd. Large Tax Payer Unit, (Formerly Known as Centre-1, 28th Floor, Bajaj Auto Ltd. World Trade Centre, Bajaj Bhavani, Cuffe Parade, 226, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5652/Mum/2012 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Bajaj Holding & Vs. Asst. Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-Tax, (Formerly…

SRI JAHAR MATILAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XVIII & ANR.

The appeal is allowed

ITA/32/2015HC Calcutta13 Aug 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 13Th August, 2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 44A

…e sheet as at 31.3.2005, which has not been properly appreciated by the fact finding authorities. While on this issue it will be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr., (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). Two questions arose for consideration in the said case namely, the manner in which the actual write off takes place under the accounting principles. The second question is whether it is imperative for the assessee to close the individual account of each debtor in its books or a mere reduction in the “loans and advances account” or debto…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI vs. UNISON HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4471/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Unison Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Cirlce-25(1), Plot No.2, Nelson Mandela Road, Delhi Vasant Kunj, Phase-2Nd, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacu0455C Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr.Adv., Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Akash Shukla, Adv. Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10712/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Is Running Hotels. The Return Of Income Was E-Filed On 29.11.2014, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,21,35,196/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act On 01.09.2015. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time & Submissions Were Taken From The Assessee & Finally, The Assessment Was Completed At An Income Of Inr 30,38,83,394/- By Making Various Additions/Disallowances.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)

…the P & L account. The Assessing Officer has made addition stating that the appellant has not debited the P & L accounts but the directly reduced it from its income. The Assessing Officer has relied upon the decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC). In the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC), placing reliance on the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that after 1.1.1989, a mere provision for bad debt will not be entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). If a…

ANNA ALUMINIUM COMPANY (P) LTD.,ERNAKULAM vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX CORP.CIRCLE1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 738/COCH/2023[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anna Aluminium Company (P) Ltd. .......... Appellant Kp 111 847, Kizhakkambalam, Aluva 683562 [Pan: Aafca6562R] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Harikrishnanunny, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.08.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.10.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 7,50,26,610/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anna Aluminium Company (P) Ltd. .......... Appellant KP 111 847, Kizhakkambalam, Aluva 683562 [PAN: AAFCA6562R] vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CA Respondent by: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.08…

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CRICLE -LTU 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2956/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…at the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable to appellant. 4.1. Without prejudice to above, the PCIT failed to note that the provisions are reduced from advances these amounts are written off as held by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Vijaya Bank (323 ITR 166) and hence cannot be added back in computing book profits. 5. The Ld. PCIT erred in directing the AO to make further disallowance u/s 14A under normal computation and 115JB and to tax recovery in respect of bad debts written off which was not allowed as deduction in computing normal income ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble ITAT in appella…

SCHINDLER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 7311/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…he larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. 397 ITR 55 (Guj), wherein the Hon'ble High Court taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT323 ITR 166 (SC) and its implication on the interpretation of clause (i) of the Explanationto section 115JB of the Act held that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts which amounts to an actual write off would not be hit by clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB of the Act and, therefore, cannot be added while computing the book profits. Further,…

SCHINDLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIR-15(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7326/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…he larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. 397 ITR 55 (Guj), wherein the Hon'ble High Court taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT323 ITR 166 (SC) and its implication on the interpretation of clause (i) of the Explanationto section 115JB of the Act held that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts which amounts to an actual write off would not be hit by clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB of the Act and, therefore, cannot be added while computing the book profits. Further,…

Showing 1–20 of 384 · Page 1 of 20

...