DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX NON CORP CIRCLE II MADURAI, MADURAI vs. VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LIMITED, VIRUDHUNAGAR

ITA 2700/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 January 2026AY 2015-1619 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is restricted to the actual provision made in the books of account, subject to the statutory ceiling. The deduction cannot exceed the amount actually provided for, even if the statutory limit is higher.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative bank, claimed a deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer restricted the deduction to the actual provision made in the books, which was less than the statutory ceiling. The assessee argued that the deduction should be based on the statutory percentages regardless of the book provision.

What were the issues?

Whether the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is limited to the actual provision made in the books or can be claimed based on statutory percentages irrespective of the book provision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(viia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show 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.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
:-2-: ITA 2699 & 2700 Chny 2025 FY 2013-14, 2015-16 In CO-92 Cheny 2025 in ITA No 2699 Chny 2025 DCIT NON CIRCLE II MADURAI VS VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LIMITED आदेश/ORDER PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: These appeals filed by the Revenue and the corresponding cross- objections filed by the assessee arise out of the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] dated 10.06.2025 for AY 2013-14 and dated 17.07.2025 for AY 2015-16. Since the issues involved are common, both the appeals and cross-objections were heard together and are

disposed of by this consolidated order.

2.

Facts of the Case are that the assessee is a co-operative bank engaged in banking activities. For AY 2013-14, it filed its return of income electronically on 30.09.2013 declaring Nil income and claiming carry forward of loss of Rs.19,55,44,786/-. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS, initially to examine large interest expenditure relatable to exempt income u/s. 14A. After examination, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) accepted the assessee's explanation and made no disallowance u/s. 14A. However, the assessment culminated in disputes on two issues: 1.

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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)(viia)

All 877 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →