How many judgments cite Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT?

326 judgments on BharatTax cite Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT (343 ITR 270), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(vii), Section 36(1)(viia), Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 36(1)(viii).

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 14A Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 115JB Section 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 46 section 36(1)(vii)section 35d section 10(34)eligible business interest on securities

Judgments citing Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Bank, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 350/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…e that the assessee has claimed bad debts written off in respect of non-rural debts written off at Rs.329,62,82,921/-. It was submitted that amount was claimed in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC). The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, in the same judgment it was held that the claim of bad debts made u/s 36(1)(vii) should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Sin…

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India ( Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1228/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S / Ms. LalithaFor Respondent: ShriAshish Heliwal, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…s. 8. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act 8.1 In the impugned assessment order, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of Rs.5,712,89,34,620/- by relying on the judgment of the Hon’able Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC)]. The Hon’able Supreme Court held that a claim for bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) should be limited to the extent of the claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, and the overall claim of the assessee is subject to the conditions outlined in Section 36(2)(v) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), in his findings, relied on the same…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

ITA 428/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

…iate the fact the entire provision made has to be considered and not the provision relating to rural advances only be considered. 2. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) did not lay down the law that the deduction should be allowed by only considering the provision for rural advances in the books. 2. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the app Bank's own case for the earlier Assessment years. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT…

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 259/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan & Smt. Abarna CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

…eciate the fact the entire provision made has to be considered and not the provision relating to rural advances only be considered. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) did not lay down the law that the deduction should be allowed by only considering the provision for rural advances in the books. 2.5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the app Bank's own case for the earlier Assessment years. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)…

Bank of Maharashra, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 682/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan and Mrs. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40A(7)

…hereof is for Rs.419.37 Crore You are requested to furnish the detailed bifurcation and working of provision made for rural advances and non-rural advances. Further, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Catholic Syrian Bank (2012) 343 ITR 270, you are requested to explain as to why the deduction under section 36(1)(viia), should not be restricted to provision made for rural advances only and therefore the differential amount of „of ' 879.11 crores should not be added back to the return of income for the year under consideration. Further, you are requested produce the working of claim…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 527/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ITA No.516, 517, 526 and 527 /Chny/2024 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.516, 517, 526 and 527 /Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee by सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 526/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…:1: ITA No.516, 517, 526 and 527 /Chny/2024 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.516, 517, 526 and 527 /Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Joint Commissioner of Income M/s.Indian Bank, Tax(OSD), No.254-260, Avvai Shunmugam Salai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Royapettah, Chennai Chennai-600 041. Erode. [PAN: AAACI1607G] (अपीलार्थी/Appe…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 517/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 516/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.Sanjeev Aditya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Nayani Swapna, CIT

Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ITA No.516, 517, 526 and 527 /Chny/2024 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.516, 517, 526 and 527 /Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai M/s.Indian Bank, No.254-260, Avvai Shunmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 041. Erode. [PAN: AAACI1607G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellan…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…h in assessee's own case by several assessment years wherein the same issue has been restored back to the assessing officer. He further invited our attention to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Catholic Syrian bank Ltd versus CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270, the decision of the honourable madras High Court in case of CIT versus city Union Bank Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 144 and of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Deputy Commissioner of income tax versus Karnataka bank Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 705. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Punjab and Sindh bank versus ACI…

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…assessee's own case by several assessment years wherein the same issue has been restored back to the assessing officer. He further invited our attention to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Catholic Syrian bank Ltd versus CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270, the decision of the honourable madras High Court in case of CIT versus city Union Bank Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 144 and of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Deputy Commissioner of income tax versus Karnataka bank Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 705. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Punjab and Sindh bank ver…

Tmilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 788/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.788/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. M/S. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., The Acit, 57 V E Road, Circle-1, Tuticorin Central Bus Stand, Tirunelveli. S.O. Thoothukudi, Tuticorin-628 002. [Pan: Aaact 5558 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.788/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 v. M/s. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., The ACIT, 57 V E Road, Circle-1, Tuticorin Central Bus Stand, Tirunelveli. S.O. Thoothukudi, Tuticorin-628 002. [PAN: AAACT 5558 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Mangalore vs. Karnataka Bank Limited., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

…n- rural) should be first adjusted against the PBDD a/c allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act and only the excess should be allowed as deduction. He expressed the view that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (2012)(343 ITR 270)(SC) was rendered under the assumption that the banks would maintain separate PBDD a/c in respect of rural branches and non-rural branches and therefore it is possible to distinguish PBDD as one in respect of rural branches and non-rural branches. The Ld CIT(A) expressed the view that the claim of the bank that the provisions of sec. 36(1)(viia)…

M/S. Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

JCIT (OSD) Circle-2, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 635/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 145Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…ction 36(1)(viia) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal had also discussed the issue in light of explanation (2) inserted by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank vs CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270, and held that for the purpose of deduction towards write off of non-rural debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act, there is no need to adjust credit in the account of provision for bad and doubtful debts created in terms of :-20-: ITA. Nos: 620 & 635/Chny/2020 section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, has argued the issue at leng…

ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur Dist Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…aggregate rural advances of the bank The aforesaid claim was allowable to the assessee as per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme court in the aforesaidreferred to cases of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT 320 ITR 577 and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs 343 ITR 270. The impugned order passed by the id. CIT(A) is in consonance with the observations made by the ITAT F Bench, New Delhi having same combination in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 ie Prathma Bank Vs CIT (2016) 52 ITR (Trib.) 454 (Del.) (supra). We, therefore considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, do not…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad vs. Union Bank of India, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1230/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

…the assessee has claimed bad debts written off in respect of non-rural debts written off at Rs.166,35,33,701/-. It was submitted that those amount was claimed in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC). The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, in the same judgment it was held that the claim of bad debts made u/s 36(1)(vii) should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Sin…

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissisoner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1018/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

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

ITA 1533/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…o to section 36(1)(vii) are not applicable, as no deduction under section 36(1)(vila) 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). 4.5 The learned PCIT erred in observing that the Bank has changed its accounting policy in assessment year 2011-12 and claimed deduction under section 36(1)(vii) on account of provision written off. 4.6 The learned PCIT erred in holding that the deduction allowed under section 36(1)(vila) in previous years is to be deducted from bad debts cl…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati & Chandrapur Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…ate rural advances of the bank. The aforesaid claim was allowable to the assessee as per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme court in the aforesaid referred to cases of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT 320 ITR 577 and Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs CIT 343 ITR 270. The impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) is in consonance with the observations made by the ITAT F Bench, New Delhi having same combination in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 i.e. Prathma Bank Vs CIT (2016) 52 ITR (Trib.) 454 (Del.) (supra). We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, do…