Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 879 (2.90 seconds)
Documents citing Uco Bank, Calcutta vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 13 May, 1999

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi on 13 May, 2020

36. If we appreciate the facts of this case in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UCO Bank vs. CIT 240 IT R 355 (SC) it is clear that since the assessee has been maintaining its accounts on mercantile system, they are entitled to show his real income by taking into account market value of such investments in arriving at real taxable inco me. All the aspects argued by the Ld. DR were considered by the 29 ITA Nos. 2954 & 3041/Del/2017 Punjab National Bank Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC) and we re held in favour of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. , Mumbai vs Dcit, Circle - 2(1) , Mumbai on 5 July, 2022

3.7 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A.Y 2010-11 & 2012-13 which in turn relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of UCO Bank Vs CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 ignoring the fact that the said decision relates to banking companies with reference to accounting interest on cash basis on doubtful debts u/s 43D, whereas the assessee is not a banking company and hence the said section 43D and the said decision are not applicable in the present case?
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Indian Bank vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 October, 2012

29. Thus, as regards the valuation on the securities held by the assessee, while we confirm the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), whose view was based on carrying out the report from the Assessing Officer, following the decision in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355, we hold that the securites held as stock-in-trade and investments are to be valued at cost or market price, whichever is lower.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S Davangere District Central ... on 13 November, 2020

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee had debited Rs.1.5 Crores as provision for non performing asset but in the income computation sheet the same has not been added. The assessee was given an opportunity to explain why non performing asset provision has not added back to the total income, in the income computation sheet and again deduction 7.5% under Section 36(1)(viia) has not been claimed. The assessee thereupon submitted that a provision has been made as per the norms of the Reserve Bank of India and the details of non performing assets as well as provisions made were provided. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debt is 10 allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank Ltd. supra. The tribunal in its order dated 10.10.2014 inter alia has held that though the assessee has used the nomenclature as provision for non performing assets but in pith and substance, the provision has been created for bad and doubtful debts and in doing so the assessee has followed the guidelines framed by Reserve Bank of India. The tribunal has therefore, affirmed the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next