THE NALLEPPILLY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification. The assessee was directed to plead and prove all relevant facts before the AO within three opportunities.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities disallowed this deduction, despite the assessee's computation statement adding back the same amount. The Revenue argued for further factual reconsideration.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was justified when the assessee's own computation statement added back the amount. The need for further factual verification by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 arises against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 10.03.2023, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act").
Heard both parties at length. Case file perused.
The learned counsel for the assessee submits at the outset that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing its deduction claim u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to Rs. 92,41,386/- despite the fact that this taxpayer’s computation statement itself had added back the very amount as per the documents filed on record. Faced with this situation, the Revenue’s only case before us is that the matter requires more factual reconsideration and then detailed adjudication.
We thus seem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore assessee’s instant issue back to the AO for his afresh verification in very terms within three effective opportunities with a rider that it shall be the taxpayer to plead and prove all the relevant facts before the AO. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
