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.

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 166)

DCIT, Meerut vs. M/S Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2096/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2096/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Tax, Circle-2, C-39/5, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacas9891G Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…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) 5 Sarva UP Gramin Bank 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 of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs. 114.76 crores. There is no dispute as to the correctness of the calculation of the entitlement of deduc…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&

Section 143(3)Section 147

…regards to claim of deduction on account of write- off of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 99 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC). For this, assessee raised additional ground. 101. The assessee by this additional ground claimed that the deduction should be allowed on account of write-off of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra). During the year, the assessee has created a…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/98/2010HC Karnataka23 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115JSection 14ASection 260Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 43D

…ields. The aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. VS. VASISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD.’, (2018) 90 TAXMANN.COM 365 (SC). 8. The Supreme Court in ‘VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT’, (2010) 323 ITR 166 has held that if the income, which is earlier recognized is not to be allowed to be reversed during the subsequent years, in any case, it is permissible for the assessee to write off such an income in the concerned assessment years where it was found that amount was not recoverable. A Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in INDUSTRIA…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 948/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ebt and being written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year. 91. A number of cases decided by the Hon'ble High Courts and also by the Apex Court are cited / referred to in the above judgement. Cases of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (323 ITR 166) and Southern Technologies Vs JCIT (320 ITR 577) are referred to therein. Accounting standard AS29 and also the effect of Board's Circular's have also been discussed at length in the order along with the subject :-4-: ITA Nos.948 & 777/Chny/2018 of interpretation and construction of the relevant sections. Thus, the judgement is a comprehensive…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 777/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 948/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ebt and being written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year. 91. A number of cases decided by the Hon'ble High Courts and also by the Apex Court are cited / referred to in the above judgement. Cases of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (323 ITR 166) and Southern Technologies Vs JCIT (320 ITR 577) are referred to therein. Accounting standard AS29 and also the effect of Board's Circular's have also been discussed at length in the order along with the subject :-4-: ITA Nos.948 & 777/Chny/2018 of interpretation and construction of the relevant sections. Thus, the judgement is a comprehensive…

The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Tirur vs. M/S. South Malabar Gramina Bank H.O., Malappuram

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 366/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

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

…es will be nil, though as per books the accumulated provision is carried over. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166 wherein it was held as follows: “Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dealing with allowance of bad debts written off by the assessee covers banking as well as non-banking assessees. After April 1, 1989, a mere provision for bad debt will not be entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). If an as debits an amount of doubtful de…

M/S.South Malabar Gramina Bank, Malappuram vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Tirur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 364/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

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

…es will be nil, though as per books the accumulated provision is carried over. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166 wherein it was held as follows: “Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dealing with allowance of bad debts written off by the assessee covers banking as well as non-banking assessees. After April 1, 1989, a mere provision for bad debt will not be entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). If an as debits an amount of doubtful de…

M/S.South Malabar Gramin Bank ( Presently- Kerala Gramin Bank), Malappuram vs. The ACIT, Circle_2(2), Tirur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

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

…es will be nil, though as per books the accumulated provision is carried over. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166 wherein it was held as follows: “Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dealing with allowance of bad debts written off by the assessee covers banking as well as non-banking assessees. After April 1, 1989, a mere provision for bad debt will not be entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii). If an as debits an amount of doubtful de…

ACIT, Circle - 6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Williamson Magor & Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross

ITA 2258/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

…Hon'ble Effectively it was a write off. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Effectively it was a write off. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank -vs.- CIT(2010) 323 ITR 166. Therefore, the (2010) 323 ITR 166. Therefore, the claim of assessee with regard to diminution in value of investment has to succeed. with regard to diminution in value of investment has to succeed. with regard to diminution in value of investment has to succeed.” 17. Consistent with the view taken therein, we allow this additional grounds of the…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1937/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

…vances, 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 of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs. 114.76 crores. There is no dispute as to the correctness of the calculation of the entitlement of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) o…

Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year:2015-16

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

…ve noticed that similar claims which were made on the basis of the interpretation of the term 'bad debts written consistently allowed in the assessments of prior years, relying on the decisions of Hon Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT ,reported in 323 ITR 166 (SC) clarifying that if an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the asset account like sundry debtor's account, it would constitute a write off of an actual debt eligible for u/s 36(l)(vii) of the Act, and the learned PCIT has not bought on record any change on facts and law, and hence the assessme…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…012-13 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. any refutal in the Remand Report dated 7th March, 2017, while the AO continues to abide by the views of the erstwhile AO. Thus following the ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in Vijaya Bank v Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC), and BadridasDaga v CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC), I direct deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 11,82,37,000/- made by the AO both in the normal computation and in the computation of Book Profit.” 12. Heard both the parties. From the facts and material on record we find that the assessee, a public sector undertaking, is engaged in the business…

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…012-13 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. any refutal in the Remand Report dated 7th March, 2017, while the AO continues to abide by the views of the erstwhile AO. Thus following the ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in Vijaya Bank v Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC), and BadridasDaga v CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC), I direct deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 11,82,37,000/- made by the AO both in the normal computation and in the computation of Book Profit.” 12. Heard both the parties. From the facts and material on record we find that the assessee, a public sector undertaking, is engaged in the business…

M/S Dcm Shriiram Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5221/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 5221 & 5222/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcm Shriram Ltd., 5Th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. …...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacd0097R Vs Dcit, Circle-7(1), …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent C.R.Building, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 154Section 240

…ite off in the valuation of fertilizer bonds as the appellant company had shown in its Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2009 the reduced value of fertilizer bonds and, accordingly, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) it was to be considered as actual write off and not the provision and, therefore, no adjustment in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was warranted and in any case no rectification u/s 154 of the Act could be made on the ground that it was a provision.” ITA No:5221 & 5222/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2009-10 3. Both appe…

M/S Dcm Shriiram Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5222/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 5221 & 5222/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcm Shriram Ltd., 5Th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. …...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacd0097R Vs Dcit, Circle-7(1), …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent C.R.Building, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 154Section 240

…ite off in the valuation of fertilizer bonds as the appellant company had shown in its Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2009 the reduced value of fertilizer bonds and, accordingly, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) it was to be considered as actual write off and not the provision and, therefore, no adjustment in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was warranted and in any case no rectification u/s 154 of the Act could be made on the ground that it was a provision.” ITA No:5221 & 5222/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2009-10 3. Both appe…

Shriraminsight Share Brokers Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2975/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2975/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Vs. Income Tax, Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci2727H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Gautham Venketanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai Dated 31.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Part Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D, Disallowance Of Depreciation In Respect Of Royalty, Disallowance Of Bad Debt & Part

For Appellant: Shri S. Gautham VenketanarayananFor Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT

Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2975/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Vs. Income Tax, Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [PAN: AAACI2727H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Gautham Venketana…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1093/MUM/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 State Bank Of India Principal Commissioner Of Financial Reporting & Vs. Income Tax-2, Mumbai. Taxation Department, 3Rd Floor , Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan No. Aaacs8577K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad

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

…cordance with section 36(2)(v). State Bank of India 6. The Ld. PCIT erred in not appreciating that the deduction amounting to Rs.833,30,47,694 claimed by the appellant is in accordance with the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC), as the appellant has debited the profit and loss account and correspondingly reduced the amount of loans and advances outstanding on assets side of balance sheet. 7. The Ld. PCIT erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 36(2)(v) and proviso to section 36(1)(viia) are not applicable, as no deduction under section 36(1)(viia)…

Gloabal Mansions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1192/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, D.R

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

…o submitted that in note No.9 which is as regards trade receivable, the said provisions for bad and doubtful debts were reduced from the trade receivables and net amount was shown in the balance sheet. The assessee relies on the decision of Vijay Bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166(SC). Similarly, the assessee relies on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KEC International Ltd. vs. DCIT (33 taxmann.com 243) and CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (2012) (341 ITR 385). However, the AO brushing aside the submission of the assessee came to the conclusion that provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts of Rs.3,…

Shri Praveen Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1434/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37Section 68

…dings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “ITAT”), the following particulars were filed from the assessee’s side:- 1. Balance Sheet 31.03.2011 2. Copy of account Arshad Ahmad 3. Copy of Bad Debts account 4. Judgement 190 Taxmann 391 (SC) 5. Judgement 190 Taxmann 257 (SC) 6. Judgement 101 ITD 191 (Delhi) 7. Paper cutting dated 04.03.2015 8. Remand Report dated 05.10.2015 9. Purchase Deed 10. Sale Deed [C.1]. At the time of hearing before us, Ld.AR of the assessee relied on the aforesaid particulars filed from assessee’s side in ITAT. Ld.AR for the assessee drew our particular attention to paper cutti…

Kec International Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 929/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Vana Srinivasa Rao, JCITFor Respondent: 17.07.2019

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148

…of Rs.3.25 Crs. It is submitted that the provision is debited to P&L A/c and reduced from the sundry debtors, loans and advances which constitutes write off in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 166. He also submitted that the provisions netted of against the assets cannot be added to the book profit for the purpose of computing tax liability in the light of the above decision. On the other hand, the Ld.Sr.DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the materials placed on recor…

Vijaya Bank v. CIT

What is Vijaya Bank v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Vijaya Bank v. CIT

DCIT, Meerut vs. M/S Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

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

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Tirur vs. M/S. South Malabar Gramina Bank H.O., Malappuram

M/S.South Malabar Gramina Bank, Malappuram vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Tirur

M/S.South Malabar Gramin Bank ( Presently- Kerala Gramin Bank), Malappuram vs. The ACIT, Circle_2(2), Tirur

ACIT, Circle - 6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Williamson Magor & Company Limited, Kolkata

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Thrissur

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata

M/S Dcm Shriiram Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S Dcm Shriiram Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Shriraminsight Share Brokers Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

Gloabal Mansions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1)(4), Mumbai

Shri Praveen Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Meerut

Kec International Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai