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 366,470 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-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

ITTA/100/2010HC Telangana01 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee appeals ITA Nos

ITA 496/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate and Shri.C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, Adl. CIT
Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…rroneous and contrary to the provisions of statute as explained by the CBDT Circular. 6.Interpretation placed by the CIT in the certain observations of the Apex Court in the case of Catholic ITA No.496 & 497/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: Syrian Bank Vs CIT reported in 343 ITR 270 is out of context and erroneous. The issue before the Apex Court in that case was regarding allowance or deduction under Section 36(1 )(vii) in the light of the provision of provisions of Explanation (v) to sec 36(2) read with Section 36(1)(viia). The issue of quantum of deduction u/s 36(1 )(viia) was neither before the Apex Court nor was it deci…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-6, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 1803/KOL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…1)(vii) and as such it is not required to be set off against provision for bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). The assessee also submitted that the above issue is fully covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC). On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of Authorities below. 7.1 From the aforesaid discussion we find that the AO has disallowed the bad debts written off by holding that as per the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) bad debts relating to non-rural branches of the bank shall be allowed if such bad debts exceed the credit b…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-6, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 1802/KOL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…1)(vii) and as such it is not required to be set off against provision for bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). The assessee also submitted that the above issue is fully covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC). On the other hand the ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of Authorities below. 7.1 From the aforesaid discussion we find that the AO has disallowed the bad debts written off by holding that as per the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) bad debts relating to non-rural branches of the bank shall be allowed if such bad debts exceed the credit b…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 2142/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Ltu, Centre-1, M/S Union Bank Of India, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacu0564G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Union Bank Of India, Dcit Ltu, Centre-1, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacu0564G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Kemwal (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 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. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 1627/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Ltu, Centre-1, M/S Union Bank Of India, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacu0564G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Union Bank Of India, Dcit Ltu, Centre-1, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacu0564G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Kemwal (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 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…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Cauvery Kalpatharu

Appeal is disposed of, following the circular

ITA/135/2015HC Karnataka04 Jan 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 254Section 260

…in the case of Syndicate Bank ITA No.668 & 669/B/2010 dated 19.6.2013 and overlooking its own decision constituted a mistake rectifiable under section 254[2] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further also overlooking the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 343 ITR 270 [SC] in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank and also Board’s Instruction No.17/2008 dated: 26.11.2008?’ 3 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the Circular beari…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6921/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6921/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 बनाम/ The Acit, Union Bank Of India, Large Tax Payer Unit, Union Bank Bhavan, Vs. Centre-1, 29Th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6980/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, The Acit, Union Bank Bhavan, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vs. 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, World Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6922/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम/ The Acit, Union Bank Of India, Large Tax Payer Unit, Union Bank Bhavan, Vs. Centre-1, 29Th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacu 0564G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Department By: Shri G.M. Dass ""यथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Dass
Section 1Section 2Section 2(45)Section 24ASection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…tical claim in the assesee’s own case in A.YT 2007-08, vide its order dated 18.1.2003 passed in ITA Nos. 631/M/2010 & 6349/M/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 u/s. 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 the ass…

Manipal Health Systems

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

COP/136/2015HC Karnataka04 Dec 2015

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

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…

ACIT, Circle - 52, Kolkata vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumdar, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 366/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…t did not have retrospective effect and accordingly, in the relevant accounting year tax did not have to be deducted. Hon’ble High court held as under: “8. Referring to this decision, in Catholic Syrian Bank Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 3 SCC 784, it has been observed that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has statutory right to issue circulars under Section 119 of the Act to explain or tone down the rigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of the provisions. Circulars issued have force of law and are binding of the Income Tax authorities though they cannot be enforced adversely agains…

DCIT, Circle-52, Kolkata vs. Sri Subhotosh Majumder . S. Jamumbder &Co, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1629/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…t did not have retrospective effect and accordingly, in the relevant accounting year tax did not have to be deducted. Hon’ble High court held as under: “8. Referring to this decision, in Catholic Syrian Bank Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 3 SCC 784, it has been observed that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has statutory right to issue circulars under Section 119 of the Act to explain or tone down the rigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of the provisions. Circulars issued have force of law and are binding of the Income Tax authorities though they cannot be enforced adversely agains…

ACIT, Circle - 52, Kolkata vs. Shri Subhotosh Majumder, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2058/KOL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. Srivastava, CITFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

…t did not have retrospective effect and accordingly, in the relevant accounting year tax did not have to be deducted. Hon’ble High court held as under: “8. Referring to this decision, in Catholic Syrian Bank Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 3 SCC 784, it has been observed that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has statutory right to issue circulars under Section 119 of the Act to explain or tone down the rigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of the provisions. Circulars issued have force of law and are binding of the Income Tax authorities though they cannot be enforced adversely agains…

ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4842/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4678/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Central Accounts Department, Vs. World Trade Center, 6Th Floor, Cuff Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 10Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80L

…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. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 4678/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4678/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Central Accounts Department, Vs. World Trade Center, 6Th Floor, Cuff Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 10Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80L

…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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1961/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ral branches are also required to be restricted to the extent of such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the account of provision of bad and doubtful debts made u/s 36(1)(viia). Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. V. CIT 343 ITR 270 has held that the provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia ) are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. Accordingly, bad debts written off in accounts, other than those for which the provision is made under clause (viia), will not be restricted to extent of provision of bad and doubtful debts m…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee and revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1937/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R.Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.Singh, CIT., DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ral branches are also required to be restricted to the extent of such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the account of provision of bad and doubtful debts made u/s 36(1)(viia). Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. V. CIT 343 ITR 270 has held that the provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia ) are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. Accordingly, bad debts written off in accounts, other than those for which the provision is made under clause (viia), will not be restricted to extent of provision of bad and doubtful debts m…

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 840/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…pment bank" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80P; 6.1 The Interpretation of above provisions had come before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are separate, distinct and independent from each other. As a result, the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) governing the allowance of bad debts are not controlled or limited by the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) but once the bad debt is actuall…

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 1432/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…pment bank" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80P; 6.1 The Interpretation of above provisions had come before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are separate, distinct and independent from each other. As a result, the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) governing the allowance of bad debts are not controlled or limited by the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) but once the bad debt is actuall…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4908/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4908/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Circle-16(1) Indra Palace, New Delhi H-Block, Connaught Circle New Delhi Aaacc1072F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Smt. Diva Singh, JM AND Sh. O.P.Kant, AM ITA No.4908/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ACIT Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Circle-16(1) Indra Palace, New Delhi H-Block, Connaught Circle New Delhi AAACC1072F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Date of Hearing : 15.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :14.10.2015 ORDER PER O.P.KANT, A.M. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 25.08.2011 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - XIX, New Delhi, raisi…

Bank of Ceylon, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 518/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.518/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Bank Of Ceylon , The Deputy Director Of 20/21, Casa Major Road, Vs. Income Tax, New No.2, Zerart Garden Ii Lane, International Taxation I, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacb2218C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate Shri S. Ganapathi Subramanian, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. B. Nischal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…to cl. (vii) when bad debts written off are also claimed as deduction under cl. (vii), the same is allowable only to the extent it is in excess of the provision created and allowed as deduction under cl. (viia). But in CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC), it was held that provisions of ss. 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. But proviso to s. 36(1)(vii) operates in cases falling under cl. (viia) to limit the deduction to the extent of difference between the debt or part thereof written off in the previous year and…