Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs City Union Bank — TCA/55/2026

Case under U/s 260-a of the Income Tax Act,1961 Section 1. Next hearing: 01st July 2026.

Next hearing 01-Jul-2026

CNR: HCMA010130522026

e-Filing Number

16-01-2026

Filing Number

TCA/9470/2026

Filing Date

19-Jan-2026

Registration No

TCA/55/2026

Registration Date

28-Apr-2026

Judge

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Coram

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

T.C. APPEAL/REVISION ( 170 )

Sub-Category

S. 260 (A) of I.T. Act, 1961 ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIALSECTION

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 260-a of the Income Tax Act,1961 Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

    Adv. V.Mahalingam,P.E.R. Mangala Suvigaran,P.E.R. Mangala Suvigaran, P.E.R. Mangala Suvigaran

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.City Union Bank

Case History

  1. 01-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 01-Jul-2026

    For Admission (Tca)

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    Honourable The Chief JUSTICE,Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul MuruganView PDF

    The Madras High Court admitted the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's appeal against City Union Bank on two substantial questions of law: whether the ITAT erred in finding no error by the AO regarding disallowance of bad debt deductions under section 36(i)(vii), and whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the PCIT's section 263 order without merit examination. Notice was issued to respondent, returnable in four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 02-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 19-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. TCA/55/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madras High Court admitted the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's appeal against City Union Bank on two substantial questions of law: whether the ITAT erred in finding no error by the AO regarding disallowance of bad debt deductions under section 36(i)(vii), and whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the PCIT's section 263 order without merit examination. Notice was issued to respondent, returnable in four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case