Bank Ltd. v. ACIT

149 ITD 611Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#9407 most cited

What is Bank Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) is not restricted to banks having rural branches. The provision for such deduction does not need to relate to rural advances.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Bank Ltd. v. ACIT · 149 ITD 611 · section 36(1)(viia) · deduction for provision · rural branches · bank deduction · assesses's own case · deduction for advances

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 57(i)section 2(d)section 46section 46asection 36(1)(viia)section 211section 35ddeduction under section 80iasection 10(34)disallowance of interest expendituresection 246section 194h

Judgments citing Bank Ltd. v. ACIT

M/S Syndicate Bank, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Udupi

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1219/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…) is misplaced as the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not go into the manner of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). To support its contentions, the assessee bank placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ING Vysya Bank [(2014) 149 ITD 611] & Vijaya Bank [ITA No. 578/Bang/2012 dated 27/02/2015]. Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that bank had created a ITA No.1219/Bang/2019 & ITA No.186/PAN/2019 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 11 of 32 provision of Rs. 1445,42,49,751/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1695,59,52,309/- based on the decision of Bangal…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…man.com 526, Bhagini Nivedita sahkari bank Limited versus DCIT 174 ITD 303,Kodangullar account co- ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 operative Bank Ltd versus ACIT 160 ITD 132 and DCIT versus ING Vasya bank Ltd 149 ITD 611. 084. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 085. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The only reason why the deduction is disallowed to the assessee is that assessee does not have any rural branches. we find that deduction u/…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…man.com 526, Bhagini Nivedita sahkari bank Limited versus DCIT 174 ITD 303,Kodangullar account co- ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 operative Bank Ltd versus ACIT 160 ITD 132 and DCIT versus ING Vasya bank Ltd 149 ITD 611. 084. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 085. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The only reason why the deduction is disallowed to the assessee is that assessee does not have any rural branches. we find that deduction u/…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…man.com 526, Bhagini Nivedita sahkari bank Limited versus DCIT 174 ITD 303,Kodangullar account co- ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 operative Bank Ltd versus ACIT 160 ITD 132 and DCIT versus ING Vasya bank Ltd 149 ITD 611. 084. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 085. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The only reason why the deduction is disallowed to the assessee is that assessee does not have any rural branches. we find that deduction u/…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…man.com 526, Bhagini Nivedita sahkari bank Limited versus DCIT 174 ITD 303,Kodangullar account co- ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 operative Bank Ltd versus ACIT 160 ITD 132 and DCIT versus ING Vasya bank Ltd 149 ITD 611. 084. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 085. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The only reason why the deduction is disallowed to the assessee is that assessee does not have any rural branches. we find that deduction u/…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…man.com 526, Bhagini Nivedita sahkari bank Limited versus DCIT 174 ITD 303,Kodangullar account co- ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 operative Bank Ltd versus ACIT 160 ITD 132 and DCIT versus ING Vasya bank Ltd 149 ITD 611. 084. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 085. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The only reason why the deduction is disallowed to the assessee is that assessee does not have any rural branches. we find that deduction u/…

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…man.com 526, Bhagini Nivedita sahkari bank Limited versus DCIT 174 ITD 303,Kodangullar account co- ITA No. 3498 to 3500 & 3236 to 3238/Mum/2018 Yes Bank Limited; A.Y. 11-12 to 13-14 operative Bank Ltd versus ACIT 160 ITD 132 and DCIT versus ING Vasya bank Ltd 149 ITD 611. 084. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 085. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The only reason why the deduction is disallowed to the assessee is that assessee does not have any rural branches. we find that deduction u/…

M/S Corporation Bank, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1678/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 40a

…ITAT, Bangalore benches in the case of Corporation Bank (ITA No.1264 & 1352 (B) 2013) relating to AY 2011-12 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee following the decision rendered by another co-ordinate bench in the case of ING Vysya Bank Ltd (2014)(149 ITD 611). The co-ordinate benches have expressed view that What has to be seen by the AO is as to whether PBDD is created (irrespective of whether it is in respect of rural or non-rural advances) by debiting the Profit & Loss a/c. To the extent PBDD is created, the assessee is entitled to deduction subject to upper limit of deduction laid down in Sec.36(…

M/S. Syndicate Bank, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1884/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…ITA No.1884/Bang/2018 & M/s. Canara Bank, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) Deputy Commissioner of FM Wing, Head Office, 112, JC Income-tax Road Vs. Cirle-1 Bangalore 560 002 Udupi PAN NO : AACCS4699E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Canara Bank Income-tax (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) Cirle-1 Vs. FM Wing, Head Office, 112, JC Udupi Road Bangalore 560 002 APPELLANT RESPONDENT…

Sant Sopankaka Sahakari Bank Ltd., Saswad, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 215/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Mayuri KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Houshang Boman Irani
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…hat invoking of jurisdiction by the Commissioner was held to be not justified, relying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., which is dated 17.02.2012. 21. The Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in DCIT Vs. ING Vysya Bank Ltd. (2014) 149 ITD 611 (Bangalore) vide its order dated 25.10.2013 had held vide para 32 that the object of substitution of clause (viia) as explained in para 5 of CBDT Circular No.464, dated 18.07.1986 was to give separate deduction. The first was in respect of rural advances and second for provision for bad and doubtful debts in general. 22. Similar proposition has…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Corporation Bank, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1264/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

…the total amount of the provisions. CIT(A) however, did not accept this contention. He confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Now before us learned AR submitted a similar issued had come up before this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs ING Vysya Bank Ltd.(2014) 149 ITD 611. According to him, after considering the decision of the 4 ITA Nos.1264 & 1352(B)/13 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank and also various amendments made to Section 36(1)(viia) it was held by the Tribunal that the actual provision made in the books by the assessee for bad and doubtful debts alone was to be reckoned for consid…