Supreme Court dismisses petition due to 162-day filing delay and lack of merit; related applications also disposed of.Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - Petitioner filed its return of income ( ROI ) for AY 2010-11 declaring a total income but subsequently, filed a revised ROI as added back an amount being a provision for Non-Performing Advances as per the RBI Regulations. Petitioner has also claimed an amount as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) being 7.5% of the profit of Petitioner and claim was disclosed in the computation of income - As decided by HC [ 2024 (3) TMI 731 - BOMBAY H... ... ... Supreme Court Judgment Summary

Case Citation: TMI

Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan

Representation for Petitioner: Mr. Raghavendra P Shankar, A.S.G., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv., Mr. Suvesh Kumar, Adv.

Order:

1. The Court noted a "delay of 162 days in filing the Special Leave Petition," which was not "satisfactorily explained."
2. Upon review, the Court found no merit in the Special Leave Petition.
3. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was "dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits."
4. Any pending applications are disposed of. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - Petitioner filed its return of income ( ROI ) for AY 2010-11 declaring a total income but subsequently, filed a revised ROI as added back an amount being a provision for Non-Performing Advances as per the RBI Regulations. Petitioner has also claimed an amount as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) being 7.5% of the profit of Petitioner and claim was disclosed in the computation of income - As decided by HC [ 2024 (3) TMI 731 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] allow the claim of Petitioner for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act and clear case of change of opinion and that cannot be a basis for reopening the assessment, thus decided in favour of assessee - delay filling SLP - HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 162 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained. Even otherwise, we have gone through the Special Leave Petition and do not find any merit in the same. Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8 (3) (2) & ORS. Versus YES BANK LIMITED
Income Tax
2025 (1) TMI 462 - SC Order - TMI
SUPREME COURT - SC
Dated:- 3-1-2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 54512/2024 - -
Income Tax
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghavendra P Shankar, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Suvesh Kumar , Adv ORDER UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following. 1. There is a delay of 162 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained. Even otherwise, we have gone through the Special Leave Petition and do not find any merit in the same. 2 The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 3. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders