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 366,470 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

Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 754/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…t the sundry debtors and the same has been reflected in the balance sheet then the same cannot be treated as unascertained liability of assessee. The assessee in support of its claim relied on the order of following orders:- i) Vijaya Bank vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 166 (SC) ii) Deepak Industries Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No.2207/Kol/2010 dt. 10.06.2011 iii) M/s Trigyn Technologies Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No.2011/Mum/2012 dt 03.12.2014 24. However, Ld. CIT disregarded the contention of assessee and held the order of AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by observing as under:- “5. The assessee had…

Amrit Feeds Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 753/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…t the sundry debtors and the same has been reflected in the balance sheet then the same cannot be treated as unascertained liability of assessee. The assessee in support of its claim relied on the order of following orders:- i) Vijaya Bank vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 166 (SC) ii) Deepak Industries Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No.2207/Kol/2010 dt. 10.06.2011 iii) M/s Trigyn Technologies Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No.2011/Mum/2012 dt 03.12.2014 24. However, Ld. CIT disregarded the contention of assessee and held the order of AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by observing as under:- “5. The assessee had…

The Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Balasore vs. JCIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 417/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 2(9)Section 263Section 80Section 80P(4)

…en credited to current liabilities and provision on the liability side of the Balance Sheet. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT, [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC) and M/s.Vijaya Bank v. CIT. 323 ITR 166 (SC) and in view of the ratio laid down in the above judgments, he added back Rs.2,45,59,609.13 to the income of the assessee. 17. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that without proper verification of the assessee’s written submission filed during the course of assessment proceeding and also wrongly interpreting the decision of the Hon…

DCIT, Tirunelveli vs. Tirunelveli District Central Coop Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli

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

ITA 1177/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1177/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Tirunelveli District Central Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli [Pan:Aaaat7955J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Asish Tripathi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Maruthappan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Madurai Dated 14.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of ₹.38,67,983/- Made Under Section 36(1)(Viia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri C. Maruthappan, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

…on 31.03.2012. A provision, in 4 I.T.A. No.1177/M/17 fact, has to be reflected in the balance-sheet by way of reduction in the value of the corresponding asset - trade debt in the instant case, as also explained by the Apex Court in Vijaya Bank v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC). What, on the contrary, the assessee has created (in its accounts) is a reserve for Non- Performing Assets (NPAs) at ₹.38,67,983/-. A reserve, by definition, is only an appropriation of profit, so that, again, admittedly, it does not go to reduce the profit of the assessee (reporting enterprise). There is concomitantly no reduction in the va…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…not actually written off and squared off from debtor’s account in the books of account. What constitutes write off has been settled by the ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 5 of 59 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT (323 ITR 166). In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reducing provision for bad debts from debtor’s account in the balance sheet and debiting the provision for bad debts to P&L Account constitutes write off. The co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Joint CIT vs. Vijaya Bank in ITA Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 dated 22/07/2016, to which bo…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1493/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…not actually written off and squared off from debtor’s account in the books of account. What constitutes write off has been settled by the ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 5 of 59 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT (323 ITR 166). In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reducing provision for bad debts from debtor’s account in the balance sheet and debiting the provision for bad debts to P&L Account constitutes write off. The co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Joint CIT vs. Vijaya Bank in ITA Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 dated 22/07/2016, to which bo…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…not actually written off and squared off from debtor’s account in the books of account. What constitutes write off has been settled by the ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 5 of 59 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT (323 ITR 166). In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reducing provision for bad debts from debtor’s account in the balance sheet and debiting the provision for bad debts to P&L Account constitutes write off. The co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Joint CIT vs. Vijaya Bank in ITA Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 dated 22/07/2016, to which bo…

Canara Bank vs. Addl.C.I, .T

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 979/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…not actually written off and squared off from debtor’s account in the books of account. What constitutes write off has been settled by the ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 5 of 59 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT (323 ITR 166). In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reducing provision for bad debts from debtor’s account in the balance sheet and debiting the provision for bad debts to P&L Account constitutes write off. The co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Joint CIT vs. Vijaya Bank in ITA Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 dated 22/07/2016, to which bo…

J.C.I.T vs. M/S Canara Bank

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1035/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior Advocate and Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…not actually written off and squared off from debtor’s account in the books of account. What constitutes write off has been settled by the ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 5 of 59 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT (323 ITR 166). In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reducing provision for bad debts from debtor’s account in the balance sheet and debiting the provision for bad debts to P&L Account constitutes write off. The co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Joint CIT vs. Vijaya Bank in ITA Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 dated 22/07/2016, to which bo…

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 3588/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru-Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 195(1)Section 254(1)Section 4Section 40Section 5(2)

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ एल मुंबई एल एल” खंडपीठ एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम एवं राम राम लाल राम लाल लाल नेगी लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3435/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" D…

Baitarani Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 318/CTK/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…Officer. 9. Before us, ld A.R. reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities. Asse ssment Years : 2 008 -09 & 20 09- 201 0 10. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Bank vs CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC), wherein, it was held that after April 1, 1989, a mere provision for bad debt will not be entitled to deduction u/s.36(1)(vii). If an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credit the assets account like sundry debtors account, that would constitute a write off of an actual debt. However, if an asse…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3080/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234DSection 250(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2747/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Shriram Insight Share Brokers Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd, Income Tax, Mookambika Complex, Corporate Circle 6(1), No.4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAACI2727H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3080/Mds…

Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2747/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234DSection 250(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2747/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Shriram Insight Share Brokers Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd, Income Tax, Mookambika Complex, Corporate Circle 6(1), No.4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAACI2727H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3080/Mds…

DCIT, Chennai vs. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 448/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.448/Mds/2017 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Adv
Section 36(2)Section 43D

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी !ड.एस. सु"दर $संह, लेखा सद"य के सम) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.448/Mds/2017 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s. State Industries Tax, Corporate Circle 6(2), Aayakar Promotion Corporation of Bhavan, New Block, 7th Floor, 121, Tamil Nadu Ltd., M.G.Raod, Chennai-600 034. 19-A, Rukumani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [PAN: AAACS 4643 J] (अपीलाथ-/…

Elite International P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3079/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Vimal Punmiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Arvind Kumar, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(2)

…e books of accounts under the head ‘Provision for doubtful advances’ and therefore the same are allowable u/s 37 / 28(i) of the Income Tax Act. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements for various contentions:- (i) Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT [SC 323 ITR 166 2010] (ii) Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT [SC 320 TR 577] (iii) CIT Vs. Tainwala Chemicals & Plastics India Ltd. [Bombay HC 215 Taxmann 153] (iv) CIT Vs. Newanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd. [Gujarat HC 54 Taxmann.com 28] (v) CIT Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. [Gujarat High Court 1982 136 ITR 825] (vi) ACIT Vs. Hi-Lines Pens Pvt. Ltd. [Delhi Tribunal ITA…

M/S Triveni Plenty Engg. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/740/2004HC Delhi27 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…o Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Assessee as inserted with effect from 1st April, 1989 and as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 2 SCC 548 and Vijaya Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 5 SCC 416 both the questions are required to be answered in the affirmative i.e. in the favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 4. The appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J APRIL 27, 2017 b ITA 740/2004 Page 2 of 2…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Mcnally Bharati Engineering Co.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 532/KOL/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijayendra Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 43B

…ducing corresponding amount from debtors on assets side of Balance Sheet. Hence, the amount provided represents bad debts written off. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank -vs.- CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (sq, wherein it was held that once an amount was debited in the Profit & Loss account and corresponding debts were reduced, it was nothing but a write-off of bad debt. Since the amount debited has been reduced from debtors, it represents bad debts and therefore the same cannot be added in computing Book profit. He relied on the following decision…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Maya Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 813/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd Income-Tax-11(1), 23 Shah Indl Estate, फनधभ/ Room No.467, 4Th Floor, Off Veera Desai Rd, Vs. Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M K Marg, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Income-Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S C TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 133(6)

…der the normal provisions of the Act, should have allowed deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts, as provided in section 36(l)(vii) of the Act, in the light of the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank V/so CIT reported in 323 ITR 166 which is relied upon by the appellant in this appeal. The said deduction for provision for doubtful debts remained to be claimed by the appellant in the return of income on account of bonafide ignorance of law. 20. The ld. AR submitted before us that the additional ground raised qua deduction in respect of Rs.85,98,557/- vide application dated 7…

Maya Entertainment Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7098/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd Income-Tax-11(1), 23 Shah Indl Estate, फनधभ/ Room No.467, 4Th Floor, Off Veera Desai Rd, Vs. Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M K Marg, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Income-Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S C TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 133(6)

…der the normal provisions of the Act, should have allowed deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts, as provided in section 36(l)(vii) of the Act, in the light of the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank V/so CIT reported in 323 ITR 166 which is relied upon by the appellant in this appeal. The said deduction for provision for doubtful debts remained to be claimed by the appellant in the return of income on account of bonafide ignorance of law. 20. The ld. AR submitted before us that the additional ground raised qua deduction in respect of Rs.85,98,557/- vide application dated 7…

Maya Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 507/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd Income-Tax-11(1), 23 Shah Indl Estate, फनधभ/ Room No.467, 4Th Floor, Off Veera Desai Rd, Vs. Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M K Marg, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Income-Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Maya Entertainment Ltd, फनधभ/ Mumbai-400053 Tax-11(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S C TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 133(6)

…der the normal provisions of the Act, should have allowed deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts, as provided in section 36(l)(vii) of the Act, in the light of the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank V/so CIT reported in 323 ITR 166 which is relied upon by the appellant in this appeal. The said deduction for provision for doubtful debts remained to be claimed by the appellant in the return of income on account of bonafide ignorance of law. 20. The ld. AR submitted before us that the additional ground raised qua deduction in respect of Rs.85,98,557/- vide application dated 7…