Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

343 ITR 270Supreme Court of India2012#235 most cited

What is Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), the debt must be actually written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, distinct from merely making a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee bears the onus to satisfy the conditions under both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act.

326

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT · Section 36(1)(vii) · Section 36(1)(viia) · bad debt deduction · actual write-off · provision for bad and doubtful debts · irrecoverable debt · Section 36(2) · banking companies · TRF Ltd distinguished · Southern Technologies Ltd followed

Also reported as

206 Taxmann 1823 SCC 784

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 115JBSection 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(2)section 36(1)(v)section 36(1)(viii)section 46section 36(1)(vii)section 35dsection 10(34)eligible businessinterest on securities

Judgments citing Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tvm vs. State Bank of Travancore, Tvm

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/118/2009HC Kerala13 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…to Section 36(1) (vii) clause (v) of Section 36(2) i.e ., 'assessee to which clause (viia) sub-section(1) applies'. In other words, if the case of the assessee does not fall under Section 36(1)(viia) proviso/limitation would not come into play.” 1 (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) I.T.A. No.118/2009 -5- xxx xxxx xxxxx “Consequently, while answering the question in favour of the assessee, we allow the appeals of the assessee and dismiss the appeals preferred by the revenue. Further, we direct that all matters be remanded to the Assessment Officer for computation in accordance with law, in light of the law enunciate…

Thecommissioner of Income Tax, Trichur vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Trichur

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/1439/2009HC Kerala13 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…Revenue in the instant appeal. The operative portion in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd judgment reads thus: “Firstly, the Full Bench ignored the significant expression appearing in both the proviso to Section 36(1) (vii) clause (v) of Section 36(2) i.e ., 1 (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) I.T.A. No.1439/2009 -5- 'assessee to which clause (viia) sub-section(1) applies'. In other words, if the case of the assessee does not fall under Section 36(1)(viia) proviso/limitation would not come into play.” xxx xxxx xxxxx “Consequently, while answering the question in favour of the assessee, we allow the appeals of the assessee…

The Jalgaon People'S Co.Op Bank Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 698/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.698/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jalgaon People‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. 152, Polan Peth Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425 001 Pan : Aacat1603M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.698/PUN/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jalgaon People‟s Co-OP Bank Ltd. 152, Polan Peth Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425 001 PAN : AACAT1603M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29.01.2021 घोषणा…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Davangere District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/264/2018HC Karnataka05 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on actual write off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act would amount to double deduction and the same is in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS. CIT (SC) 343 ITR 270. It is further submitted that the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision has not been taken note of by the tribunal and therefore, the matter requires re consideration. It is also urged that reliance 5 placed on decision of this court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. CANFIN HOMES LTD., 347 ITR 382 is of no…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Davangere District Central Co-Operative Bank

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

ITA/136/2015HC Karnataka04 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260Section 40Section 43B

…vision under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on actual write off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act would amount to double deduction and the same is in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS. CIT (SC) 343 ITR 270. It is further submitted that the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision has not been taken note of by the tribunal and therefore, the matter requires re consideration. It is also urged that reliance placed on decision of this court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. CANFIN HOMES LTD., 347 ITR 382 is of no assistance to the assessee…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Davangere District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,

ITA/265/2018HC Karnataka04 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 36(1)(viia)

…on under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and 6 on actual write off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act would amount to double deduction and the same is in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS. CIT (SC) 343 ITR 270. It is further submitted that the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision has not been taken note of by the tribunal and therefore, the matter requires re consideration. It is also urged that reliance placed on decision of this court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. CANFIN HOMES LTD., 347 ITR 382 is of no assistance to the a…

Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…36(1)(vii), its first proviso and its Explanation -2 read with section 36(1)(via) and 36(2) of the Act and keeping in view the ratio of P a g e 4 | 25 ITA No.1 84/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 14- 15 the decision of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC). 4. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer show caused the assessee by way of note sheet dated 16.11.2016 on six points asking the assessee to furnish the details under section 142(1) of the Act including allowability of claim of loss on One time settlement…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2227/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…al claim in the assessee's own case in AY 2007-08, vide its order dated 18.1.2003 passed in ITA Nos.6631/Mum/2010 & 6349/Mum/2010. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (343 ITR 270) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd (2012)(349 ITR 705). We also notice that the new Explanation 2, which covers both rural and non-rural advances, has been inserted under sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014 only and hence it cannot have retrospective effect, since it affects substantive rights of t…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2229/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…al claim in the assessee's own case in AY 2007-08, vide its order dated 18.1.2003 passed in ITA Nos.6631/Mum/2010 & 6349/Mum/2010. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (343 ITR 270) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd (2012)(349 ITR 705). We also notice that the new Explanation 2, which covers both rural and non-rural advances, has been inserted under sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014 only and hence it cannot have retrospective effect, since it affects substantive rights of t…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1805/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…al claim in the assessee's own case in AY 2007-08, vide its order dated 18.1.2003 passed in ITA Nos.6631/Mum/2010 & 6349/Mum/2010. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (343 ITR 270) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd (2012)(349 ITR 705). We also notice that the new Explanation 2, which covers both rural and non-rural advances, has been inserted under sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014 only and hence it cannot have retrospective effect, since it affects substantive rights of t…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1804/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…al claim in the assessee's own case in AY 2007-08, vide its order dated 18.1.2003 passed in ITA Nos.6631/Mum/2010 & 6349/Mum/2010. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (343 ITR 270) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd (2012)(349 ITR 705). We also notice that the new Explanation 2, which covers both rural and non-rural advances, has been inserted under sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014 only and hence it cannot have retrospective effect, since it affects substantive rights of t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalaburagi vs. M/S Krishna Grameena Bank, Gulbarga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 522/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(VII)Section 361(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. and APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year 496/Bang/2018 M/s. Krishna Grameena Bank, The Assistant Commissioner 2011-12 Head Office – Kusanoor Road, of Income-Tax, P. B. No.4, Circle –1, Gulbarga – 585 105. Gulbarga. PAN : AAGFK 6964 K 1102/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2012-13 522/Bang/2018 The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Krishna Grameena Bank, 2011-12 of Income-Tax, Gulbarga – 585 105. Circle –1, Gulbarga. PAN : AAGFK 6964 K 521/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2013-14 Assessee by : Smt.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalaburagi vs. M/S Krishna Grameena Bank, Gulbarga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 521/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(VII)Section 361(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. and APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year 496/Bang/2018 M/s. Krishna Grameena Bank, The Assistant Commissioner 2011-12 Head Office – Kusanoor Road, of Income-Tax, P. B. No.4, Circle –1, Gulbarga – 585 105. Gulbarga. PAN : AAGFK 6964 K 1102/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2012-13 522/Bang/2018 The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Krishna Grameena Bank, 2011-12 of Income-Tax, Gulbarga – 585 105. Circle –1, Gulbarga. PAN : AAGFK 6964 K 521/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2013-14 Assessee by : Smt.…

M/S Krishna Grameena Bank, Gulbarga vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Gulbarga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 496/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(VII)Section 361(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. and APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year 496/Bang/2018 M/s. Krishna Grameena Bank, The Assistant Commissioner 2011-12 Head Office – Kusanoor Road, of Income-Tax, P. B. No.4, Circle –1, Gulbarga – 585 105. Gulbarga. PAN : AAGFK 6964 K 1102/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2012-13 522/Bang/2018 The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Krishna Grameena Bank, 2011-12 of Income-Tax, Gulbarga – 585 105. Circle –1, Gulbarga. PAN : AAGFK 6964 K 521/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2013-14 Assessee by : Smt.…

M/S Krishna Grameena Bank, Gulbarga vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalaburagi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1102/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(VII)Section 361(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. and APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year 496/Bang/2018 M/s. Krishna Grameena Bank, The Assistant Commissioner 2011-12 Head Office – Kusanoor Road, of Income-Tax, P. B. No.4, Circle –1, Gulbarga – 585 105. Gulbarga. PAN : AAGFK 6964 K 1102/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2012-13 522/Bang/2018 The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Krishna Grameena Bank, 2011-12 of Income-Tax, Gulbarga – 585 105. Circle –1, Gulbarga. PAN : AAGFK 6964 K 521/Bang/2018 -do- -do- 2013-14 Assessee by : Smt.…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…his issue afresh by considering the decision rendered by ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank, by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej &Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. 328 ITR 81 and by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. 344 ITR 259. The A.O. while passing the final assessment order, duly considered the above said 3 decisions and confirmed the disallowance originally made in the draft assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014,…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…his issue afresh by considering the decision rendered by ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank, by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej &Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. 328 ITR 81 and by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. 344 ITR 259. The A.O. while passing the final assessment order, duly considered the above said 3 decisions and confirmed the disallowance originally made in the draft assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014,…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Hubli vs. M/S Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad

In the result the disallowance made of Rs

ITA 2054/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…debiting the same to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. 5. The AO however proceeded to discuss the provisions of Sec.36(1)(vii) and 36(2)(v) of the Act, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT 343 ITR 270(SC) and the amendment to the provisions of Sec.36(1)(vii) Explanation-1 w.e.f 1.4.2014 by the Finance Act, 2013 and finally concluded in paragraph-4.6 of his order as follows: “4.6 Hence it is concluded that, the assessee is therefore not eligible for any deduction u/s.36(1)(viia), as it has not made a provision for bad and doubtful debts during…

Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1206/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

…ction 36(1)(viia) of the Act does not apply when the assessee does not have rural branches / rural advances. For this proposition, the Assessing Officer relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in 343 ITR 270 (SC). 4. The CIT(A) vide the discussion in para 8.5 of his order approved AO's order on this issue. He not only relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court‟s judgment in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) but also relied on CBDT Circular No.258, dated 14.06.1979 explaining the said amended provisions of said clause (viia). He also rel…

Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1205/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

…ction 36(1)(viia) of the Act does not apply when the assessee does not have rural branches / rural advances. For this proposition, the Assessing Officer relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in 343 ITR 270 (SC). 4. The CIT(A) vide the discussion in para 8.5 of his order approved AO's order on this issue. He not only relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court‟s judgment in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) but also relied on CBDT Circular No.258, dated 14.06.1979 explaining the said amended provisions of said clause (viia). He also rel…