DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ANDHRA BANK , HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty paid to the RBI for deviation in KYC-AML guidelines was compensatory in nature, not penal for an offense, and thus deductible under Section 37(1). The issue regarding the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) was set aside to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a PSU bank, claimed deductions under Section 36(1)(viii) for a special reserve and also sought to deduct penalties paid to the RBI for KYC-AML guideline violations. The Assessing Officer disallowed both claims, and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether penalties paid to RBI for KYC-AML guideline violations are deductible business expenses, and the correct computation of eligible profits for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT1,596 citing402 ITR 640 · 2018 · SC · Read judgment
- Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT326 citing343 ITR 270 · 2012 · SC · Read judgment
- United Commercial Bank v. CIT314 citing240 ITR 355 · 1999 · SC
- State Bank of Travancore v. CIT222 citing158 ITR 102 · 1986 · SC · Read judgment
- UCO Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B122 citing4 SCC 599 · 1999
- CIT v. Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd.44 citing373 ITR 526 · 2015 · SC
- CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.22 citing352 ITR 88 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. IFCI8 citing201 Taxmann 75 · 2011
- 7 citing
- 91 ITD 6166 citing91 ITD 616 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary
Per Manjunatha G., A.M
These cross appeals filed by the assessee, as well as the Revenue, are directed against the orders dated 27/11/2017 of the Ld. CIT (A)-1, Hyderabad and pertain to A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, the appeals filed by the assessee as well
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(viii)
- Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), ChennaiITA 1996/CHNY/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Sundaram Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs CIT, ChennaiITA 1778/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Sundaram Home Finance Limited, Chennai vs CIT, ChennaiITA 1777/CHNY/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Bandhan Bank Limited, Kolkata vs DCIT-6(1), KolkataITA 965/KOL/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Small Industries Development Bank of India…ITA 870/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026