BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

53 results for “depreciation”+ Section 119clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai703Delhi451Bangalore180Ahmedabad137Chennai117Kolkata88Chandigarh77Jaipur62Pune55Hyderabad53Raipur45Visakhapatnam38Indore38Amritsar26Lucknow21Karnataka20Cuttack17Cochin16Surat14Nagpur14SC8Ranchi7Jodhpur7Rajkot7Dehradun6Guwahati5Telangana5Calcutta2Patna2Agra2Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)72Addition to Income37Section 37(1)36Section 234A24Section 36(1)(viii)24Section 80I22Disallowance21Section 115J20Deduction20

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

section 119 of the Act hereby clarified that the cost of construction on development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT projects may be amortized and claimed as allowable expenditure under the Act. 6. The amortization allowable may be computed at the rate which ensures that the whole of the cost incurred in creation of infrastructural facility of road/highway

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. R P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

ITA 26/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

Section 14819
Depreciation19
Section 26314
ITAT Hyderabad
08 Feb 2022
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Biswal Narahari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

119 of the Act, the Department cannot take a stand that the Instruction has no binding effect on the officers responsible for execution of the Act and that they are free to exercise their discretion in the matter contrary to the letter and spirit of relaxation announced. Therefore relying on the above case laws it is submitted that in appellant

SUNSHINE GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

ITA 61/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 61/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Sunshine Granites Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Karimnagar Central Circle-1(2), [Pan No. Aaocs6148Q] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध / Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध / Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 13/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 79

section 79 of the Act has no application to the facts of the case insofar as it relates to the brought forward depreciation losses. 8. Learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Subhulaxmi Mills Ltd. [2001] 119

PATNA BAKHTIYARPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 182/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Patna Bakhtiyarpur Tollway Vs. Acit Circle-16(2) Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Aafcp9577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ar Revenue By: Ms.K.Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 31.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms.K.Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

Section 32 of the I.T. Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in its decision of treating toll roads as plant and machinery, when this is not as per rule 5 of New Appendix I of the I.T. Rules?" 4. In view of the fact that according

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 621/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 617/HYD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 957/HYD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 616/HYD/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 958/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 618/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 622/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 962/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 961/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 959/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

section 10B of the Act for Rs. 14,22,28,086/-. 119. Since the issue is already adjudicated on the identical facts in the Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2008-09 hereinabove, the same decision holds good. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits on the issue. 120. Ground No. (ii): Disallowance of additional depreciation

UNION BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE- ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

119 of the Act. On the other hand, circular has been issued by the RBI which is binding on all the banking companies in general. However, when it comes to assessment under the Act, the revenue authorities are bound by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that interest paid on NPAs should be excluded from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 351/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

119 of the Act. On the other hand, circular has been issued by the RBI which is binding on all the banking companies in general. However, when it comes to assessment under the Act, the revenue authorities are bound by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that interest paid on NPAs should be excluded from

UNION BANK OF INDIA,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

119 of the Act. On the other hand, circular has been issued by the RBI which is binding on all the banking companies in general. However, when it comes to assessment under the Act, the revenue authorities are bound by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that interest paid on NPAs should be excluded from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 350/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

119 of the Act. On the other hand, circular has been issued by the RBI which is binding on all the banking companies in general. However, when it comes to assessment under the Act, the revenue authorities are bound by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that interest paid on NPAs should be excluded from