How many judgments cite Vijaya Bank v. CIT?

392 judgments on BharatTax cite Vijaya Bank v. CIT (323 ITR 166), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vijaya Bank v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(vii), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 36(1)(viia).

Vijaya Bank v. CIT

323 ITR 166Supreme Court of India2010#188 most cited

What is Vijaya Bank v. CIT authority for?

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

392

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vijaya Bank v. CIT · section 36(1)(vii) · write off bad debts · provision for doubtful debts · deduction for bad debts · profit and loss account · balance sheet · advances · loans

Also reported as

190 Taxmann 257231 CTR 209

Sections most often in play

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

Read the full judgment

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 depreciation section 10(34)book profits section 41 section 115j

Judgments citing Vijaya Bank v. CIT

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9148/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…ITA.Nos.9147 to 9152 & 9448 & 9449/Del./2019 Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad. amounts from said Shri Abhay Salwan and in spite of that they are a secure creditor in accordance with the principle of law laid down in the case of Vijay Bank vs., CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). 21.7. He further submitted that in the Court of Saurab Gusain, Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Faridabad in the case of Vijay Sachdeva (Plaintiff) vs., Abhay Salwan (Defendant), vide order dt. 22.09.2015 (PB Pages 112-197) in suit for specific performance of contract where the issue is that the defendant Abhay Salwan agreed to sell the property…

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9147/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

M/S Corporation Bank, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1678/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 40a

…ited to Profit and Loss account. It was submitted that the said provision account has been reduced from the “advances account” in the Balance Sheet. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (323 ITR 166)(SC), the assessee contended that the technical write off is sufficient to meet the requirements of sec.36(2) and claim bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The AO, however, disallowed the bad debts relating to non-rural branches claimed on the ground that the assessee has not written off the debts through P & L account. However, it was struck do…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1838/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…d form the advances in the Balance Sheet. In support of the assessee's claim for write off of bad debts, the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the assessee's own case i.e. Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). 5.2.2 The learned Authorised Representative contended that the reliance placed by the authorities below on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Southern Technologies Limited (supra) is not applicable as the facts in this cited case are totally different. It is submitted that the cited decision has been noted by the Hon'ble…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1833/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

The Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1906/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan & Smt. R. Lalitha, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…IT(A) did not agree with the view expressed by AO. Accordingly he held that the assessee’s case is covered by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court & ITA No.229/PAN/2018 M/s. The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore Page 6 of 22 in the case of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166. We also notice that the revenue has not filed appeal challenging the above said decision of Ld CIT(A) and hence this view of Ld CIT(A) has attained finality. 5.2 The Ld CIT(A), however, proceeded to examine this aspect from another angle, i.e., he took the view that the AO has not examined the claim of write off ‘non-rural bad debts” of Rs.192.…

M/S. Syndicate Bank, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1884/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…ng/2018 & M/s. Canara Bank, Bangalore Page 7 of 20 6.2 Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) did not agree with the view expressed by AO. The observations made by Ld CIT(A) are extracted below:- “6.4.7 It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166 that the prudential write off is an allowable deduction. 6.4.8 It is argued that as per section 36(1)(vii) the debts to be written off in the accounts of the assessee. The section 2(12A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 defines the terms “Books or Books of Account” in terms of an inclusive definition to include Ledgers, day books, cash books, account…

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 1637/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Anand Sondur, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni. JCIT-DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

…ated that it amounts actual of write off of debts and relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CIT v. M/s.Sandvik Asia Limited [ITA Nos.563 C/w 564/2006 (judgment dated 21st February, 2012)] – Karnataka High Court. (ii) Vijaya Bank v. CIT [(2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC)] 4 M/s.Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Pvt.Ltd. 6. However, the CIT rejected the contentions raised by the assessee and passed the impugned order directing the A.O. to duly verify the claim of provision for bad and doubtful debts, afresh. The relevant finding of the CIT, reads as follows:- “5…………….. It is clear from the P &…

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pasupati Acrylon Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8200/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gupta, C.A

Section 115J

…e Assessee also relied on the following decisions and submitted that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee. S. Particulars No 1. CIT v/s Yokogawa India Ltd 17 Taxmann.com 15 (Kar) 2. Vijaya Bank vs Commissioner of Income Tax & Or (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kirloskar Systems [2013] 40 taxmann.com 124 (Kar) 4. CIT Vs Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. Tax Appeal No.749 of 2012 (Guj) 5. Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs CIT (2010) 2 SCC 548 (SC) 6. CIT vs HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. 305 ITR 409 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Adbhut Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 0094 (Bom) 8…

Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range 6(3)

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…d No. 2 which is in respect of Write off of Bad and Doubtful Debts, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the issue in appeal has been considered by the various courts in the following cases and decided in favour of the assessee viz., Vijaya Bank [323 ITR 166 (SC)], TRF Ltd [323 ITR 397 (SC)], Arrow Coated Products Ltd [136 ITD 315 (Mum)], Jwala Prsad Tiwari [24 ITR 537 (Bom)] and Vithaldas Dhanji Bhai [130 ITR 95 (Guj)] and requested the same be adopted in the case of assessee also. Ld.DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 8.1 Further, Ld AR submitted that in the instant case the ass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2559/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgan, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…profit and loss account and reducing the same from aggregate amount of ‘Loans and Advances’ as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, in its profit and loss account. Basing on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bbank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166 he submits that the provisions under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act apply to both the banking and nonbanking business. 8. With reference to the P&L account and Balance Sheet for the year ended with 31/3/2010 he demonstrated that not only the loans written off were shown as an expense in the P&L Account but also that the closing balance of loans an…

Principal Comm of Income Tax 2, Pune vs. M/S Nalco Water India Ltd (Formerly Nlc Nalco India Ltd)

The appeal is dismissed and substantial questions of law are answered

ITAT/211/2017HC Calcutta02 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…Form No.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE Present : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA ITAT NO: 211 OF 2017 Arising out of IA NO: GA 2 OF 2017 (OLD NO: GA 1829 OF 2017) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE VS. M/S. NALCO WATER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.) Mr. Tilak Mitra, Advocate Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Advocate …for the appellant Mr. Paras S. Savla, Advocate Mr.Pratik Poddar, Advocate Mr. A.K. Dey, Advocate …for the respondent Heard on : 02.12.2021 Judgment on :02.12.2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.: Thi…

M/S. Corporation Bank, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1108/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM and Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1108/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Union Bank of India The Deputy Commissioner of (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Income-tax, Circle 2(1) v. Mangalore. Central Accounts Department 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. PAN : AAACU0564G. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.170/PAN/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s.Union Bank of India Income-tax, Circle 2(1) (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) v. Mumbai – 400 021. Mang…

M/S Corporate Bank, Mangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

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

ITA 1679/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM and Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1679/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.Union Bank of India The Principal Commissioner of (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Income-tax, v. Mangalore. Central Accounts Department 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021. PAN : AAACU0564G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.S.Ananthan, CA Respondent by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2021 Date of Hearing : 16.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This…

The DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4345/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2003-2004

Bench: Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit. Circle 7(1), Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Piramal Tax Healthcare Ltd.,) Range 7(3)(2), (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Mumbai - 400020 India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Piramal Enterprises Limited

Section 143(3)

…dictional High Court had disposed of the aforesaid two questions by observing as under:- 3. In so far as question (c) is concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order has followed the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166/190 Taxman 257, wherein it has been held that once the provision of doubtful debt has been debited to the profit and loss account and corresponding provision has been credited or reduced from the debtors account in the balance-sheet, then, this would amount to writing off. In the present case, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the resp…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3779/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2003-04

Section 143(3)

…e hereby admitted. The ld. AR before us stated that this deduction has been claimed by the assessee in respect of write off of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act in light of decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 166. We find that similar issue had arose in assessee‟s own case for A.Y.2001-02 and 2002-03 wherein this Tribunal vide its order dated 12/07/2021 had restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO by observing as under:- “39. Additional ground no.1, raised by the assessee relates to deduction for write-off of the bad debts under section 36(l)(vii) of…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd

ITA/548/2015HC Karnataka02 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 260Section 260A

…credit as claimed by the assessee being revenue in nature allowed the claim. 9. Learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. Commissioner of Income- tax reported in (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC), wherein it has been explained that after the explanation vide Finance Act, 2001, in Section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 01.04.1989, the assesee (s) is now required not only to debit the profit and loss account but simultaneously also reduce loans and advances or the debtors from the asset side of the balance sheet to the extent of the…

Divi'S Laboratories Ltd, Hyderabad vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Hyderabad

ITA 710/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak (D.R.)

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)

…ebts has to be included in section 115JB MAT adjustment. Their lordship’s further conclude that a provision amounts to write off if there is simultaneous reduction form the loans and advances in the asset side of the balance sheet in terms of Vijaya Bank case 323 ITR 166 (SC). We thus find no reason to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action making the impugned section 115JB MAT adjustment qua assessee's provision made for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee's first and foremost substantive ground in Assessment Year 2008-09 is rejected. 3. The assessee's 2nd substantive ground is Second substantive ground…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Divi'S Laboratories Ltd, Hyderabad

ITA 709/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak (D.R.)

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Divi'S Laboratories Ltd, Hyderabad

ITA 708/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak (D.R.)

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)