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 367,154 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

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

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…gards to claimof deduction on account of write-off of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 Act in terms of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of VijayaBank 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 VijayaBank (supra). Duringthe year, the assessee has created a pro…

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

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…gards to claimof deduction on account of write-off of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 Act in terms of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of VijayaBank 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 VijayaBank (supra). Duringthe year, the assessee has created a pro…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…ential Write Off in which case the customer account still appears in the branch books. In both cases, the actual amount written off is reduced from the loans and advances of the bank. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) UCO Bank v. CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC) Southern Technologies v. CIT, 352 ITR 577(SC) Canara Bank v. DCIT (2022) (1) TMI 124 (Bangalore Trib) in assessee’s own case. 11. It was submitted that the bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance in the provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction as hel…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…ential Write Off in which case the customer account still appears in the branch books. In both cases, the actual amount written off is reduced from the loans and advances of the bank. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) UCO Bank v. CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC) Southern Technologies v. CIT, 352 ITR 577(SC) Canara Bank v. DCIT (2022) (1) TMI 124 (Bangalore Trib) in assessee’s own case. 11. It was submitted that the bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance in the provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction as hel…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…ential Write Off in which case the customer account still appears in the branch books. In both cases, the actual amount written off is reduced from the loans and advances of the bank. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- Vijaya Bank v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) UCO Bank v. CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC) Southern Technologies v. CIT, 352 ITR 577(SC) Canara Bank v. DCIT (2022) (1) TMI 124 (Bangalore Trib) in assessee’s own case. 11. It was submitted that the bad debt written off should be first adjusted against the credit balance in the provisions account and only the excess can be claimed as deduction as hel…

M/S. Icici Bank Ltd ( Erstwhile Icici Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 7589/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 88

…ff the bad debt it was rightly allowed by the first appellate authority. In support of her contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decision:- i) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC); and ii) Vijaya Bank v/s CIT, [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC) 41. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. As per the provisions contained in Section 36(1)(vii), after its amendment w.e.f. 1st April 1989, any bad debt if actually written-off as irrecoverable in the books of account is to be allowed as deduction. However, Explanation-1 to section 3…

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

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…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). M/s. Bank of Baroda 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…

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

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…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). M/s. Bank of Baroda 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…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. Balmer Lawrie and Co Ltd

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

ITAT/259/2022HC Calcutta13 Apr 2023

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…ITAT NO. 259 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 1 of 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 29.03.2023 DELIVERED ON:13.04.2023 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA ITAT/259/2022 (IA NO: GA/02/2022) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX…

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Page No.| 65 C.O.No. 96/MUM/2002 Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd Tribunal following the decisionrendered in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, 323 ITR 166 (SC) upheld the findings of CIT(A) and dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue. In the impugned assessment year there is no change in the facts. Consequently, the ground No.6 raised in the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.” 103. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribu…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Spl. Range-07, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 740/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, Ld. CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36

…me Tax Act. 46. Further, the ld. CIT(A) in para 9.3.11 for the A.Y. 2015-16 accepted factual position that the sum of Rs.315.00 crores reduced from the loans & advances and thus the principle of the Hon’ble 16 Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 166 for write off u/s 36(1)(vii) duly satisfied. The relevant extract of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT reported in (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) is reproduced as under: “To this extent, we agree with the contentions of Shri Bhattacharya. However, as stated by the Tribunal, in the present case, besides debiting the P&L a/c and cre…

M/S Olivia Apparels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1253/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153C

…ents where the impugned debts are shown as sundry debtors in the balance sheet of as on 31.03.2004 and are written off by the assessee in its books during the year ending 31.03.2005. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: i. Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, 323 ITR 166 [SC] ii. CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd., 292 ITR 339 [Del] iii. CIT vs. Girish Bhagwatprasad, 256 ITR 772 [Guj] iv. CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Private Limited, 292 ITR 399 [Mad] v. CIT vs. Autometers Ltd., 292 ITR 345 [Del] vi. Board Circular No. 551, dated 23, 1990, 183 ITR (St.) 7 vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional Hig…

M/S Olivia Apparels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1252/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153C

…ents where the impugned debts are shown as sundry debtors in the balance sheet of as on 31.03.2004 and are written off by the assessee in its books during the year ending 31.03.2005. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: i. Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, 323 ITR 166 [SC] ii. CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd., 292 ITR 339 [Del] iii. CIT vs. Girish Bhagwatprasad, 256 ITR 772 [Guj] iv. CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Private Limited, 292 ITR 399 [Mad] v. CIT vs. Autometers Ltd., 292 ITR 345 [Del] vi. Board Circular No. 551, dated 23, 1990, 183 ITR (St.) 7 vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional Hig…

M/S. Olivia Apparels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1251/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153C

…ents where the impugned debts are shown as sundry debtors in the balance sheet of as on 31.03.2004 and are written off by the assessee in its books during the year ending 31.03.2005. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: i. Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, 323 ITR 166 [SC] ii. CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd., 292 ITR 339 [Del] iii. CIT vs. Girish Bhagwatprasad, 256 ITR 772 [Guj] iv. CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Private Limited, 292 ITR 399 [Mad] v. CIT vs. Autometers Ltd., 292 ITR 345 [Del] vi. Board Circular No. 551, dated 23, 1990, 183 ITR (St.) 7 vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional Hig…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Oliviya Apparels Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1212/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153C

…ents where the impugned debts are shown as sundry debtors in the balance sheet of as on 31.03.2004 and are written off by the assessee in its books during the year ending 31.03.2005. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: i. Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, 323 ITR 166 [SC] ii. CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd., 292 ITR 339 [Del] iii. CIT vs. Girish Bhagwatprasad, 256 ITR 772 [Guj] iv. CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Private Limited, 292 ITR 399 [Mad] v. CIT vs. Autometers Ltd., 292 ITR 345 [Del] vi. Board Circular No. 551, dated 23, 1990, 183 ITR (St.) 7 vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional Hig…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Oliviya Apparels Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1211/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153C

…ents where the impugned debts are shown as sundry debtors in the balance sheet of as on 31.03.2004 and are written off by the assessee in its books during the year ending 31.03.2005. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: i. Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, 323 ITR 166 [SC] ii. CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd., 292 ITR 339 [Del] iii. CIT vs. Girish Bhagwatprasad, 256 ITR 772 [Guj] iv. CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Private Limited, 292 ITR 399 [Mad] v. CIT vs. Autometers Ltd., 292 ITR 345 [Del] vi. Board Circular No. 551, dated 23, 1990, 183 ITR (St.) 7 vi. Unreported decision of the Jurisdictional Hig…

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1920/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 115JSection 131Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ance Sheet would amount to actual write off of bad debts and accordingly, it would not be hit by clause (i) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB of the Act. Both the High Courts have followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (323 ITR 166)(SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the provisions of sec.36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Act in the context of a banking company. Under the provisions of sec.36(1)(vii) of the Act, an assessee is eligible to claim deduction of “amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee”. E…

Zedo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1426/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…and thereby would have to be included while computing the operating margins of the company. Hence, the said provision for doubtful debts would be clearly ascertained liability. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 166 had indeed held that provision for doubtful debts once reduced from the gross value of the debtors would tantamount to actual write off of the debtors and hence, would be allowed as deduction. This conclusion goes to prove that the said provision for doubtful debts can always be only an ascertained liability arising in the normal course of busine…

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the interest adjustment towards loan receivable is justified. With regard to the question of whether the provision adjusted against the loan whether amounts to actual write off is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT, [2010[ 323 ITR 166 (SC) where in it was held that the provision for doubtful debt debited to the P&L account constitutes an actual write off if the same is simultaneously reduced from the loans & advances/debtors and is shown as net of such provision. Accordingly in the year in which the provision is created by debiting to the P&L account would result in actual wri…

M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 988/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

…ot a provision, but the actual diminution in the value of the asset and therefore cannot be adjusted against the book profits u/s. 115JB. The assessee in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v. CIT, [2010[ 323 ITR 166 (SC) wherein it is observed that the provision for doubtful debt debited to the P&L account constitutes an actual write off if the same is simultaneously reduced from the loans & advances/debtors and is shown as net of such provision. 9. The CIT(A) did not accept the contentions of the assessee by holding that – “5.4 The submissions of the appe…