ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ZILA SAHKARI BANK LIMITED, JHANSI
In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding the assessee's eligibility for the deduction had arisen in the preceding assessment year, 2016-17. Both parties agreed that the impugned claim involved the same issues as in the previous year.
What were the facts?
The Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case proceeded ex-parte. The issue concerns the assessee's eligibility to claim a deduction under Section 36(1)(viia).
What were the issues?
Eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under section 36(1)(viia) for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054850011(1) dated 03.08.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Suffice to say, it emerges during the course of hearing that the very issue of the assessee’s eligibility to claim section 36(1)(viia) deduction, had arisen between the parties in the 2 ITA No.136/Agr./2023 Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. preceding assessment year 2016-17 involving the Revenue’s appeal which stands restored back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication by the learned co-ordinate bench. Both the parties are are very well in agreement that the assessee’s impugned claim herein involves the very branches which were there in the preceding assessment year 2016-17.
Faced with this situation, we adopt judicial consistency to restore the Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication and verification in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03/02/2025.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(viia)
- M/S Malwa Gramin Bank Now Known As Punjab… vs DCIT, SangrurITA 283/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- M/S the Malwa Gramin Bank, Sangrur vs ACIT, Circle, SangrurITA 1181/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- M/S the Malwa Gramin Bank, Sangrur vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, SangrurITA 156/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur vs DCIT, Circle-1, JaipurITA 1248/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs ACIT-Circle- 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 3429/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
