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 367,164 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 14ASection 115JBSection 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 depreciationsection 10(34)book profitssection 41section 115j

Judgments citing Vijaya Bank v. CIT

DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut vs. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3223/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 92C

…advances, the deduction on account of the actual write off of bad debts would be limited to excess of the amount written off over the amount of the provision which had already been allowed u/s 36(1) (viia) (Southern Technologies 320 ITR 577 (SC) & Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166 (SC) referred) 10 . In the instant case, we endorse the decision of Ld .CIT(A) which held that the assessee has admitted in its submissions as well as before AO regarding the entitlement o f deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) o f Rs . 114.76 crores . There is no dispute as to the correctness o f the calculation o f the entitlement of deduction u/s 36(1)(v…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sppl Property Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2074/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…d. [2016] 74 taxmann.com 163 (Guj.) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 17 taxmann.com 151204 Taxman 305 (Kar.) (para 4), v. CIT v. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 124/[2014] 220 Taxman 1 CKar.) (para 4), vi. Vijaya Bank v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166/190 Taxman 257 (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 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat…

DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd ( Successor to Idea Mobile Communication Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 35ASection 37(1)

…s for bad and doubtful debts from sundry debtors in the balance sheet in schedule 5 a copy of which is filed at page No.12 to 15 of the paper book. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Vijay Bank vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 the said amount may kindly be allowed. The Ld. A.R. also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court also in the case of CIT vs. Tainwala Chemicals and Plastic India Ltd. (2013) 215 taxmann.com 153. 10. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 11. In the rebuttal, the Ld. A.R. relied on the decisions a…

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6573/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 35ASection 37(1)

…s for bad and doubtful debts from sundry debtors in the balance sheet in schedule 5 a copy of which is filed at page No.12 to 15 of the paper book. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Vijay Bank vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 the said amount may kindly be allowed. The Ld. A.R. also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court also in the case of CIT vs. Tainwala Chemicals and Plastic India Ltd. (2013) 215 taxmann.com 153. 10. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 11. In the rebuttal, the Ld. A.R. relied on the decisions a…

DCIT(Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. M/S Cmi Fpe Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2317/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shreekala Pardesi
Section 115JSection 145

…provision for doubtful debts claimed by the assessee in computation of 2 M/s. CMI FPE Limited book profit under section 115JB of the Act, especially in view of the fact that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v/s CIT, [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC) is applicable only to Banking Companies. 2. At the time of hearing, it was brought to our notice that ground No. 1 and 2 are covered by the order of coordinate bench in the case of assessee in earlier assessment years. Ld DR agreed with the above submissions. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off this appeal as such by bringing on the releva…

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all of these four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5607/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dube, Sr. DR
Section 37

…ITA No.- 365/Del/2013 and others. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos:- 365/Del/2013 and 1138/Del/2013, (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10) Bharat Heavy Electricals Dy. CIT, Limited, Vs. Circle- 2(1), New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No: AAACB4146P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos:- 5416/Del/2014 and 5607/Del/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2012-13) Bharat Heavy Electricals Dy. CIT, Limited, Vs. Circle- 2(1), New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No:…

M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all of these four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5416/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dube, Sr. DR
Section 37

…ITA No.- 365/Del/2013 and others. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos:- 365/Del/2013 and 1138/Del/2013, (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10) Bharat Heavy Electricals Dy. CIT, Limited, Vs. Circle- 2(1), New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No: AAACB4146P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos:- 5416/Del/2014 and 5607/Del/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2012-13) Bharat Heavy Electricals Dy. CIT, Limited, Vs. Circle- 2(1), New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No:…

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all of these four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 365/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dube, Sr. DR
Section 37

…ITA No.- 365/Del/2013 and others. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos:- 365/Del/2013 and 1138/Del/2013, (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10) Bharat Heavy Electricals Dy. CIT, Limited, Vs. Circle- 2(1), New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No: AAACB4146P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos:- 5416/Del/2014 and 5607/Del/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2012-13) Bharat Heavy Electricals Dy. CIT, Limited, Vs. Circle- 2(1), New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No:…

M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all of these four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1138/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dube, Sr. DR
Section 37

…ITA No.- 365/Del/2013 and others. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos:- 365/Del/2013 and 1138/Del/2013, (Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10) Bharat Heavy Electricals Dy. CIT, Limited, Vs. Circle- 2(1), New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No: AAACB4146P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos:- 5416/Del/2014 and 5607/Del/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2012-13) Bharat Heavy Electricals Dy. CIT, Limited, Vs. Circle- 2(1), New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No:…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1767/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16
Section 115Section 11JSection 143(3)Section 90Section 90(3)

…ITA Nos: 1767 and 2048/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 37 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar, Vice President and, Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member] ITA No.: 1767/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Bank of India …………………….. Appellant Taxation Department, 8th floor, Star House, C 5 G Block, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAACB0472C] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai ………………….Respondent ITA No.: 2048/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai …………………….. Appellant Vs. Bank of India…

DCIT, Circle - 3, Kolkata vs. M/S. the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 115JSection 260A

…d. [2016] 74 taxmann.com 163 (Guj.) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 17 taxmann.com 151204 Taxman 305 (Kar.) (para 4), v. CIT v. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 124/[2014] 220 Taxman 1 CKar.) (para 4), vi. Vijaya Bank v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166/190 Taxman 257 (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 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3699/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…ightly reduced in computing book profits. With regard to various provisions, he submitted that the said provisions are reduced from respective assets in the Balance-sheet and accordingly, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs CIT, 323 ITR 166(SC)it tantamount to write off of these amounts. Since these amounts are written off, these are not mere provisions which can be disallowed in computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. At the end, he prayed that the order passed under Section 263 of the Act may be quashed. 23. On the other hand, the ld. DR heavily relied on the order…

Boscj Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1582/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1556/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.R
Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

…ct and only the bad debts actually written off in the books of account is allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. When questioned, the assessee placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (323 ITR 166) and submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful debts has been reduced from the amount of Sundry debtors in the Balance sheet and the same is sufficient compliance mentioned u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act regarding writing off of debts as bad. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the amount of bad debt o…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1556/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1556/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.R
Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

…ct and only the bad debts actually written off in the books of account is allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. When questioned, the assessee placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (323 ITR 166) and submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful debts has been reduced from the amount of Sundry debtors in the Balance sheet and the same is sufficient compliance mentioned u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act regarding writing off of debts as bad. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the amount of bad debt o…

The Director of Income Tax Exemptions vs. Iskcon Charities

In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals

ITA/415/2011HC Karnataka15 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…to demonstrate that the amount paid to Jadu Works Private Limited was made in course of business. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ’VIJAYA BANK VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER’, (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 9 assesses submitted that prior to amendment of Section 153 by Finance Act, 2005 which came into force with effect from 01.04.2006, the aforesaid provision mandated that no order of assessment shall be made under Section 143 or Section 144 at any time after expiry of tw…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3327/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 37

…verable. As regards allowability of bad debts written off, reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements and CBDT Circulars. ITA 3327/MUM/2018 Vodafone India Limited vs Pr. CIT, Mumbai 1. TRF Ltd. vs CIT, 190 Taxman 391 (SC) 2. Vijay Bank vs CIT, 323 ITR 166 (SC) 3. CIT vs Star Chemicals (Bombay) (P) Ltd. 313 ITR 126 (Bombay High Court) 4. Circular No. 12/2006 (F.No.279/Misc./140/2015-ITJ) dated May 30, 2016. 5. Circular No. 551 dated Jan. 23, 1990 issued by the CBDT. 12. On the other hand, the ld DR contended that the AO had not applied his mind to the application of Section 35ABB of the Act. The or…

M/S Hajee A.P.Bava & Company vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is

ITA/555/2018HC Karnataka19 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…s sundry debtor account in the balance sheet which does 5 not amount to writing off the debt in the assessee’s books of account. The assessing officer further held that decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of ‘VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT’, (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) is not applicable to the in the fact situation of the case as the assessee is a non-banking and non-finance company and the main issue involved in the case of VIJAYA BANK supra was the apprehension that if the assessee failed to close each and every individual account of its debtors it might result in assessee claiming deduction twice…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Abb Ltd

In the result, both the substantial questions

ITA/134/2011HC Karnataka09 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 46(2)

…7 the benefit of capital loss. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in ‘T.R.F LTD. VS. COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX’, 323 ITR 397 and ‘VIJAYA BANK VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.’, 323 ITR 166. It is also submitted that any loss incurred in setting up of a business / company of a sister concern is a capital expenditure and therefore, the same has to be treated as capital loss. It is also pointed out that the assessee had failed to explain the commercial expediency. It is also urged that bad debt should occur during the course…

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

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

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 14ASection 43D

…ntional nor deliberate and prayed for consideration of all additional grounds of appeal. It was further argued that additional ground no.1 is covered by the decision of ITA. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank vs. CIT(323 ITR 166), Ground No.2 is covered by the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (33 SOT 7) (Bang.) and Ground No.3 is covered by the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Bank of India vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2781/Mum/2011 and similar grounds of appeal was remanded back to the file of AO for fresh examination and adjudication by the Tribunal…

M/S Kmg Infotech Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 329/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mulaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri H Padamchand Khincha, C.A
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.329/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2010-11 KMF Infotech Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Unit 201/202, Vanguard Rise, 163, Circle-4(1)(1), Konena Agrahara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 017. PAN - AABCK 2065 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.126/Bang/2015 Assessment year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. KMF Infotech Ltd., Circle-4(1)(1), Unit 201/202, Vanguard Rise, 163, Bengaluru. Konena Agrahara, Bengaluru-560 017. PAN - AABCK…