THE FARRUKHABAD DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK,FARRUKHABAD vs. ADDL. C.I.T., RANGE-2, FARRUKHABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenditure, citing a violation of natural justice as the remand report was not shared. It remitted the issue of 'provision for overdue interest' and the claim under Section 36(1)(viia) back to the Assessing Officer for verification as per law.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a cooperative bank, filed its return declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of expenditure due to non-production of books and enhanced income by Rs. 1,93,94,000 for 'provision for overdue interest'. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance and enhancement, noting that the assessee produced books only during remand proceedings but the report was not shared.
What were the issues?
The key issues were the validity of ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure due to non-compliance, the enhancement of income for 'provision for overdue interest' without proper notice, and the disallowance of a claim under Section 36(1)(viia).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 120(4)(b),Section 2(7A),Section 144,Section 145(3),Section 251(2),Section 36(1)(viia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
ITA No. 138/Agr/2014 has been preferred by assessee against the order of learned CIT(Appeals), Muzaffarnagar dated 20.01.2014 u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment year 2008-09, whereas assessee has preferred ITA No. 75/Agr/2016 against
ITA No.138/Agr/2014 & 75/Agr/2016
the order of learned CIT(Appeals), Aligarh dated 08.02.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. For the sake of convenience, we first take up
the appeal fo
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 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026