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)

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

…i) CIT vs. Narasiman (1999) 236 ITR 327 (SC) (iii) PCIT vs. Juptiter Capital (P.) Ltd. [1981] 170 taxmann.com 305 (SC) (iv) Vazir Sultan Tobacoo Co. Ltd. [1981] 7 Taxman 28 (SC) (v) Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT 320 ITR 577 (SC) (vi) Vijaya Bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166 (SC) (vii) PCIT vs. Torrent (P.) Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 375 (Guj) (viii) CIT vs. Vodafone Esar Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 32 (Guj) (ix) CIT vs. Binani Cement Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 281 (Cal) (x) Jubilant Energy (P) Lt. vs. DCIT (3927/Del/2016 (Delhi – Trib.) (xi) Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alluddin & Co. vs. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 490 (A…

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 6758/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Section 36(1)(va)

…unal in its own case in A.Y. 2002-03. 39. On perusal of facts on record, we are convinced that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Vijya Bank vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC). 40. In view of aforesaid, we are inclined to allow the ground in favour of the assessee.” 47. Respectfully following the view expressed by the Coordinate bench, we allow assessee's claim. This ground is allowed. 48. In Ground No.13, assessee has challenged disallowance of cost of acquisiti…

The Kerala State Financial Enterprise Ltd, Chembukkavu vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) &Tps, Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 81/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…at debiting the provision for bad and doubtful debts to profit and loss account and reducing the same from the sundry debtors / advances in the balance sheet constitute “write off”, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). However, proceeded to hold that the same provision cannot be utilized both for the purpose of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to the extent of short provision of Rs.51,14,77,320. 5. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in ITA No.5…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Thrissur vs. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 51/COCH/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…at debiting the provision for bad and doubtful debts to profit and loss account and reducing the same from the sundry debtors / advances in the balance sheet constitute “write off”, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). However, proceeded to hold that the same provision cannot be utilized both for the purpose of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to the extent of short provision of Rs.51,14,77,320. 5. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in ITA No.5…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur vs. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 50/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…at debiting the provision for bad and doubtful debts to profit and loss account and reducing the same from the sundry debtors / advances in the balance sheet constitute “write off”, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). However, proceeded to hold that the same provision cannot be utilized both for the purpose of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to the extent of short provision of Rs.51,14,77,320. 5. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in ITA No.5…

The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1) Tps, Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue stand partly allowed

ITA 869/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accontant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…at debiting the provision for bad and doubtful debts to profit and loss account and reducing the same from the sundry debtors / advances in the balance sheet constitute “write off”, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC). However, proceeded to hold that the same provision cannot be utilized both for the purpose of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to the extent of short provision of Rs.51,14,77,320. 5. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in ITA No.5…

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3 (1), Mumbai

ITA 4249/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

…d become bad. 4.2 The CIT(A) erred in not following the orders of CIT(A) 7, Mumbai for A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07 which after placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited v. CIT (SC) 230 CTR 14 and Vijaya Bank v. CIT & Anrs.323 ITR 166 have allowed the Appellant's claim for bad debts on the ground that after the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. April 1, 1989 if the debt has been written as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, it will suffice for claiming it as bad debt in the year of write off. 5. Re: Disallowance of Business Loss and other expenses-290,47,92,24…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4159/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

…d become bad. 4.2 The CIT(A) erred in not following the orders of CIT(A) 7, Mumbai for A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07 which after placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited v. CIT (SC) 230 CTR 14 and Vijaya Bank v. CIT & Anrs.323 ITR 166 have allowed the Appellant's claim for bad debts on the ground that after the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) w.e.f. April 1, 1989 if the debt has been written as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, it will suffice for claiming it as bad debt in the year of write off. 5. Re: Disallowance of Business Loss and other expenses-290,47,92,24…

Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank ), Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incometax Circle -2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1654/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, CIT (DR)

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

…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…

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 572/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.572/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Gujarat State Electricity The Pr.Cit-1 Corporation Ltd. बनाम/ Vadodara – 390 015 Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan V/S. Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Jimi Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…the provision is debited to profit and loss account and credited to asset account, by way of reduction is loan (asset), it amounts to write off. The AR placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex court in case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT as reported in [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC). 6.2. The AR further stated that the Impairment of losses amounting to Rs.1090.70 lacs relate to assets which are impaired during the year and the same has been done in accordance with the Accounting Standard 28 (now Ind AS 39) issued by ICAI. The AR also stated that this amount represents the excess of carrying value over the recoverable v…

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 6307/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)

…bunal in its own case in A.Y. 2002-03. 39. On perusal of facts on record, we are convinced that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Vijya Bank vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC). 40. In view of aforesaid, we are inclined to allow the ground in favour of the assessee. 41. In so far as Ground No.10 is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the assessee did not press it. Accordingly, ground is dismissed as not pressed. 42. Besides the main grounds, the assessee has rai…

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 5925/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

…bunal in its own case in A.Y. 2002-03. 39. On perusal of facts on record, we are convinced that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Vijya Bank vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC). 40. In view of aforesaid, we are inclined to allow the ground in favour of the assessee. 41. In so far as Ground No.10 is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the assessee did not press it. Accordingly, ground is dismissed as not pressed. 42. Besides the main grounds, the assessee has rai…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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…

Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 593/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 446 & 593 /Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2012-13 Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle – 2, LTU, No.123, Hosur Road, Bengaluru. Industrial Layout, Koramangala, . Bengaluru – 560 095. PAN – AAACR 7108 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.446/Bang/2020 By Revenue Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel for Shri S Parthasarathi, Advocate Assessee by : Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR) Revenue by : Date of hea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 446/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 446 & 593 /Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2012-13 Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle – 2, LTU, No.123, Hosur Road, Bengaluru. Industrial Layout, Koramangala, . Bengaluru – 560 095. PAN – AAACR 7108 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.446/Bang/2020 By Revenue Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel for Shri S Parthasarathi, Advocate Assessee by : Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR) Revenue by : Date of hea…

Goldiam Jewellery Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC 1(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 3272/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms Padmavathy Svs. Acit – Cc 1(2) Goldiam Jewellery Ltd Mumbai. G-10, Ground Floor, Gems & Jewellery Complex Ii, Seeps Sez, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400096. Pan/Gir No. Aaccg3424F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…ation there remains no ambiguity to the fact that the provisions made by the assessee with respect to the bad and doubtful debts will not be eligible for deduction. However, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya bank Vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 166 has observed that the assessee is eligible for deduction with respect to the provisions made against the debtors provided it were claimed in the profit and loss account as well as such provision was adjusted against the sundry debtors/ bad and doubtful debts as shown in the balance sheet. The question raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in th…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 527/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…004-05 to 2006-07 vide order dated 11.06.2012, has followed its own decision in I.T.A. No.1082/Mds/2003 dated 30.06.2011, wherein, the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v.CIT 323 ITR 166 and the Tribunal in its order dated 11.06.2012 has held as under: “11. We have perused the orders of lower authorities and heard the rival contentions. We find that the issue regarding allowance of bad debts written off on technical reasons stand decided in favour of assessee by this Tribunal in ITA No.1082/Mds/2003 for Assessment Year 1998-99. I…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 526/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…004-05 to 2006-07 vide order dated 11.06.2012, has followed its own decision in I.T.A. No.1082/Mds/2003 dated 30.06.2011, wherein, the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v.CIT 323 ITR 166 and the Tribunal in its order dated 11.06.2012 has held as under: “11. We have perused the orders of lower authorities and heard the rival contentions. We find that the issue regarding allowance of bad debts written off on technical reasons stand decided in favour of assessee by this Tribunal in ITA No.1082/Mds/2003 for Assessment Year 1998-99. I…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 517/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…004-05 to 2006-07 vide order dated 11.06.2012, has followed its own decision in I.T.A. No.1082/Mds/2003 dated 30.06.2011, wherein, the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v.CIT 323 ITR 166 and the Tribunal in its order dated 11.06.2012 has held as under: “11. We have perused the orders of lower authorities and heard the rival contentions. We find that the issue regarding allowance of bad debts written off on technical reasons stand decided in favour of assessee by this Tribunal in ITA No.1082/Mds/2003 for Assessment Year 1998-99.…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 516/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.Sanjeev Aditya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Nayani Swapna, CIT

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…004-05 to 2006-07 vide order dated 11.06.2012, has followed its own decision in I.T.A. No.1082/Mds/2003 dated 30.06.2011, wherein, the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v.CIT 323 ITR 166 and the Tribunal in its order dated 11.06.2012 has held as under: “11. We have perused the orders of lower authorities and heard the rival contentions. We find that the issue regarding allowance of bad debts written off on technical reasons stand decided in favour of assessee by this Tribunal in ITA No.1082/Mds/2003 for Assessment Year 1998-99. I…

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

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

The Kerala State Financial Enterprise Ltd, Chembukkavu vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1) &Tps, Thrissur

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Thrissur vs. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur vs. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur

The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1) Tps, Thrissur

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3 (1), Mumbai

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank ), Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incometax Circle -2(1)(1), Mumbai

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

Goldiam Jewellery Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC 1(2), Mumbai

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai