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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Chatanya Godavari, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 327/VIZ/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N.Murthy, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…163 29169463 2008-09 1107481 1107481 0 2009-10 26510567 12348065 14162502 2010-11 61289928 22361825 38928103 Total 150089718 42588534 107501184 Provision made 11.1. The AO applied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (343 ITR 270) and held that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) only on rural advances but not on the total advances. Accordingly disallowed the sum of Rs.9,57,70,177/-. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) held that till the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee was entitled…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Chatanya Godavari, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 326/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Acit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Chaitanya Godavari Guntur Grameena Bank 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.53/Viz/2016 & 54/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.326/Viz/2016 & 327/Viz/2016 Respectively) (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) M/S Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1) 3Rd Floor, Raghu Mansion Guntur 4/1, Brodipet Guntur – 5200 002 [Pan :Aaajc0523A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धििााररती कीओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N.Murthy, DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…163 29169463 2008-09 1107481 1107481 0 2009-10 26510567 12348065 14162502 2010-11 61289928 22361825 38928103 Total 150089718 42588534 107501184 Provision made 11.1. The AO applied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (343 ITR 270) and held that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) only on rural advances but not on the total advances. Accordingly disallowed the sum of Rs.9,57,70,177/-. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) held that till the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee was entitled…

Triway Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 932/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.932/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of No.14, Jaffer Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Company Circle Iii(2) Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Palanichamy, IRS, JCIT
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.932/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. M/s. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of No.14, Jaffer Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Company Circle III(2) Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [PAN AAACT 2874J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. N. Devanathan, Advocate ""…