E-ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE( NOW AMALGAMATED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK- PNB),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-07, NEW DELHI

ITA 849/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2024AY 2017-189 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions for actual write-off as per the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank. Since the facts and circumstances were similar to preceding years where similar claims were allowed and appeals were dismissed by the High Court, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a bank, claimed a deduction of Rs. 4545.89 crores as bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, and the CIT(A) set aside the matter to the AO without allowing the claim, citing amended provisions and the need to distinguish between rural and non-rural advances.

What were the issues?

Whether the bank's claim for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) was validly written off, considering the amended provisions and the distinction between rural and non-rural advances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(vii),Section 36(1)(viia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CA
For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Hearing: 04/12/2023

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.01.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in setting aside the matter to AO by not allowing the claim of Rs. 4545.89 crores claimed as bad debt by the assessee u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of identified debts. The claim is as per provisions of sec. 36(1) (vii) and should be allowed. 2

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the said debts identified as

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)(vii)

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →