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

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 1204/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

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…

DCIT, Meerut vs. M/S Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2096/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2096/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Tax, Circle-2, C-39/5, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacas9891G Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2096/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Sarva UP Gramin Bank, Tax, Circle-2, C-39/5, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut Meerut (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACAS9891G Assessee by : Sh. Vivek Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of ld. CIT (A), Meerut…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…dvances. 57. We noted that, as reliance placed by assessee, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court 64 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 judgment in the case of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). The Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the assessee had claimed a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act pertaining to urban advances. The deduction was not allowed to the assessee on the basis that deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act can be allowed only to the extent it is in excess of the provisions created and…

Jt. CIT -(OSD)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3673/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Central Bank Of India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax – 2(1) Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Jt. Cit (Osd)-2(1)(2) Vs. Central Bank Of India R.No.561, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Chandermukhi Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By Shri V. Sreekar Date Of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3739/Mum/2018 & 3673/Mum/2018 For A.Y.2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Dcit2(1) It- 44/Tr.4/16-17 Dated 30/01/2018 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 25/03/2014 By The Ld. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ders relied upon by the parties and impugned orders. We find from the record the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal that an identical issue has been decided in assessees case in the earlier years by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC). For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the operative part of the judgement as under: "41. To conclude, we hold that the provisions of Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. The bad debts written off in debts, other than those for which the pro…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Syndicate Bank

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/256/2011HC Karnataka24 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

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

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI I.T.A. NO.256 OF 2011 C/W I.T.A. NO.258 OF 2011 I.T.A. NO.256 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, CANARA TOWERS MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD UDUPI-576101, MANGALORE. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, UDUPI-576101. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. SYN…

Dena Bank, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 2159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…le. 2.1. The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the fact that the 36(1)(viia)(a) is applicable only in respect of rural debts. 2.2. The learned Pr. CIT erred in not considering the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Catholic Syrian Bank [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). 2.3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Pr. CIT erred in holding that the opening balance in the provision account as at 31-03-2013 is for rural advances only. 2.4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the fact that the learned Assessing Officer allowed the deduction after verifying the submissio…

The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Tirur vs. M/S. South Malabar Gramina Bank H.O., Malappuram

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 366/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ounts. 1.4 It is submitted that the Appellate Authority had failed to note that a provision in the accounts is not necessary and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). 1.5 It is further submitted that in the case of North Malabar Gramin Bank, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Calicut had allowed the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) relying on the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.(supra). 2. Disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1) (vii): 2 I.T.A. No. 363, 364&366/Coch/2017 2.1 The Appellant had claimed de…

M/S.South Malabar Gramina Bank, Malappuram vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Tirur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 364/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ounts. 1.4 It is submitted that the Appellate Authority had failed to note that a provision in the accounts is not necessary and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). 1.5 It is further submitted that in the case of North Malabar Gramin Bank, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Calicut had allowed the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) relying on the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.(supra). 2. Disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1) (vii): 2 I.T.A. No. 363, 364&366/Coch/2017 2.1 The Appellant had claimed de…

M/S.South Malabar Gramin Bank ( Presently- Kerala Gramin Bank), Malappuram vs. The ACIT, Circle_2(2), Tirur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ounts. 1.4 It is submitted that the Appellate Authority had failed to note that a provision in the accounts is not necessary and the same is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). 1.5 It is further submitted that in the case of North Malabar Gramin Bank, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Calicut had allowed the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) relying on the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.(supra). 2. Disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1) (vii): 2 I.T.A. No. 363, 364&366/Coch/2017 2.1 The Appellant had claimed de…

M/S. Industrial Develop, Ment Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 3371/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1998-1999

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

Section 143(3)

…ections to the Assessing Officer to grant deduction to assessee under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs CIT, Thrissur, 343 ITR 270 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that debt written off by urban branches of banks need not be adjusted against the provision for bad and doubtful debts in respect of rural branches under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed before the Bench that assessee is entitled to claim both bad debts under Section 3…

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)

…AO noticed that assessee was not having any rural advances and hence, the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. He after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 343 ITR 270 (SC) held that the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act cannot be allowed to assessee and accordingly denied the claim. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now before us. 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. at the outset submitted…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1937/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1937/Del./2016 Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ACIT Vs Sarva UP Gramin Bank Circle 2 C-39/5, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut Meerut. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACAS9891G Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR Assessee by : Sh. Vivek Gupta, CA Date of Hearing 03.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 18.12.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals)…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1093/MUM/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 State Bank Of India Principal Commissioner Of Financial Reporting & Vs. Income Tax-2, Mumbai. Taxation Department, 3Rd Floor , Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan No. Aaacs8577K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…o to section 36(1)(viia) are not applicable, as no deduction under section 36(1)(viia) is claimed by the appellant. The case of the appellant is supported by, inter alia, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 1997-98 on 28.11.1997 declaring total income of Rs.2086,56,04,580/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 27.03.2000 determining the total income at Rs.2433,18,77,427/-. The ITAT vide order dated 29.04.2016 in ITA No. 3823-24/Mum/2005 allowed c…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…sessee, on the other hand, relied upon the following judicial precedents:- 1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd ITA No.1657, 1929/M/12, 3491, 3592, 3593, 6394, 6217/M/2013 2. DCIT vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd ITA No.2817/M/16 & 38/M/18 3. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT 343 ITR 270(SC) 4. CIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd 349 ITR 705 (SC), 25 taxmann.com 235 5. DCIT vs Union Bank of India ITA No.4678/Mum/2013 6. DCIT vs UCO Bank ITA No.197/Kol/2011 7. Central Bank of India vs DCIT ITA No.7428, 7485/M/2016 DCIT vs. Union Bank of India ITA No.2142, 1627/M/2014 8. 22. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and peruse…

The Bharat Co Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5682/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhirama Kartikeyan, D.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…ords both these sections are mutually exclusive and deduction claimed by the assessee under both these heads are admissible and allowable to the bank. The issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that 3 M/s. The Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. the deductions claimed under both these sections are to be allowed independently. The issue also stands settled in the assessee’s own case in ITA No.7313/M/2011 A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 15.03.2013 wherein it has been held as under: “7. We have cons…

DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 1895/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1879, 1880 & 1881/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs The Acit Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Ltu – 1, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai – 34. 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

….T.A. Nos. 1879 to 1881, 1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 bad debts written off U/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166. The Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd 343 ITR 270 also decided in favour of the assessee. We heard Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative also. We find merit in the alternate claim of the assessee. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Vijaya Bank and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd supra, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the bad debts in respect of non-rural…

DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 1894/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1879, 1880 & 1881/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs The Acit Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Ltu – 1, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai – 34. 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

….T.A. Nos. 1879 to 1881, 1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 bad debts written off U/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166. The Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd 343 ITR 270 also decided in favour of the assessee. We heard Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative also. We find merit in the alternate claim of the assessee. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Vijaya Bank and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd supra, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the bad debts in respect of non-rural…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 1881/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1879, 1880 & 1881/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs The Acit Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Ltu – 1, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai – 34. 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

….T.A. Nos. 1879 to 1881, 1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 bad debts written off U/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166. The Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd 343 ITR 270 also decided in favour of the assessee. We heard Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative also. We find merit in the alternate claim of the assessee. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Vijaya Bank and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd supra, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the bad debts in respect of non-rural…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 1880/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1879, 1880 & 1881/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs The Acit Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Ltu – 1, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai – 34. 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

….T.A. Nos. 1879 to 1881, 1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 bad debts written off U/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166. The Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd 343 ITR 270 also decided in favour of the assessee. We heard Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative also. We find merit in the alternate claim of the assessee. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Vijaya Bank and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd supra, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the bad debts in respect of non-rural…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 1879/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1879, 1880 & 1881/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs The Acit Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Ltu – 1, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessments Year: 2008-09 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Balance Sheet Management Department, Chennai – 34. 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aaaci1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

….T.A. Nos. 1879 to 1881, 1894 & 1895/Chny/2017 bad debts written off U/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank 323 ITR 166. The Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd 343 ITR 270 also decided in favour of the assessee. We heard Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative also. We find merit in the alternate claim of the assessee. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Vijaya Bank and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd supra, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the bad debts in respect of non-rural…