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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 6 vs. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-005804-005804 - 2022Supreme Court25 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…vanced to M/s C. Bhansali on 06.03.2007 was in the ordinary course of its business. 8. It was contended that since the builder/borrower defaulted in repaying the amount, the respondent assessee decided to write off the same as a bad debt under 3 (2012) 3 SCC 784. 5 Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. It was contended that after the amendment of Section 36 of the Act in 1989, there was virtually no scope for the AO to scrutinize in detail a decision to write off the debt. Counsel relied on the decision of this court in T.R.F. Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi4. 9. M…

The Dharmapuri District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. JCIT, Salem

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistcial purposes to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1188/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1188/Chny/2016 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dharmapuri District Central Jcit बनाम/ Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Range-Iii No.81/10H, Bye Pass Road, Salem. Vs. Dharmapuri – 636 701 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-3148-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19-04-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13-07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Cuddalore District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. V/s DCIT (130 Taxmann.com 239; 14/06/2021). The Hon’ble Court, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. V/s CIT (18 Taxmann.com 282), held as under: - 19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36 (1) (viia). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible u/s.36 (1) (vii) is limited to the amount by which su…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune vs. M/S. Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 596/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…a copy of the communication addressed to the CIT(A), which is placed in the Paper Book. Before us, it is sought to be canvassed that the said claim is covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) and in the case of assessee for assessment years 2002-03, 2003- 04 and 2004-05 the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.05.2014 (supra) admitted such an Additional Ground but remitted the same back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (supra). The…

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 472/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…a copy of the communication addressed to the CIT(A), which is placed in the Paper Book. Before us, it is sought to be canvassed that the said claim is covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) and in the case of assessee for assessment years 2002-03, 2003- 04 and 2004-05 the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.05.2014 (supra) admitted such an Additional Ground but remitted the same back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (supra). The…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…mpany comes to Rs 117,55,45,107/–. Assessee has claimed deduction lower of these two amounts at ₹ 115,677,762/–. The assessee was questioned that how the deduction is available to the assessee in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 343 ITR 270. The assessee submitted that the entire provision is with respect to urban branches and assessee did not have any rural advances. The bank is entitled to deduction at the rate of 7.5% of total income and 10% of aggregate average advances made by the rural branches. Therefore, assessee is entitled to the above deduction. Assessee also submitted th…

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…mpany comes to Rs 117,55,45,107/–. Assessee has claimed deduction lower of these two amounts at ₹ 115,677,762/–. The assessee was questioned that how the deduction is available to the assessee in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 343 ITR 270. The assessee submitted that the entire provision is with respect to urban branches and assessee did not have any rural advances. The bank is entitled to deduction at the rate of 7.5% of total income and 10% of aggregate average advances made by the rural branches. Therefore, assessee is entitled to the above deduction. Assessee also submitted th…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…mpany comes to Rs 117,55,45,107/–. Assessee has claimed deduction lower of these two amounts at ₹ 115,677,762/–. The assessee was questioned that how the deduction is available to the assessee in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 343 ITR 270. The assessee submitted that the entire provision is with respect to urban branches and assessee did not have any rural advances. The bank is entitled to deduction at the rate of 7.5% of total income and 10% of aggregate average advances made by the rural branches. Therefore, assessee is entitled to the above deduction. Assessee also submitted th…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…mpany comes to Rs 117,55,45,107/–. Assessee has claimed deduction lower of these two amounts at ₹ 115,677,762/–. The assessee was questioned that how the deduction is available to the assessee in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 343 ITR 270. The assessee submitted that the entire provision is with respect to urban branches and assessee did not have any rural advances. The bank is entitled to deduction at the rate of 7.5% of total income and 10% of aggregate average advances made by the rural branches. Therefore, assessee is entitled to the above deduction. Assessee also submitted th…

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…mpany comes to Rs 117,55,45,107/–. Assessee has claimed deduction lower of these two amounts at ₹ 115,677,762/–. The assessee was questioned that how the deduction is available to the assessee in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 343 ITR 270. The assessee submitted that the entire provision is with respect to urban branches and assessee did not have any rural advances. The bank is entitled to deduction at the rate of 7.5% of total income and 10% of aggregate average advances made by the rural branches. Therefore, assessee is entitled to the above deduction. Assessee also submitted th…

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

…mpany comes to Rs 117,55,45,107/–. Assessee has claimed deduction lower of these two amounts at ₹ 115,677,762/–. The assessee was questioned that how the deduction is available to the assessee in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 343 ITR 270. The assessee submitted that the entire provision is with respect to urban branches and assessee did not have any rural advances. The bank is entitled to deduction at the rate of 7.5% of total income and 10% of aggregate average advances made by the rural branches. Therefore, assessee is entitled to the above deduction. Assessee also submitted th…

DCIT, Trichy vs. The Pudukottai District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Pudukkottai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1198/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathianarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…le to claim. He also submitted a detailed working of the aggregate advances and also the list of branches. He also stated that he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur (SC) (2012) 343 ITR 270. Deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii)(a) 7.5% of Gross total income 69,43,504.18 9,25,80,056 10% of Aggregate Average 17,79,46,875.00 18,48,90,379.18 Advances of Rural branches Aggregate Average Advances of Rural Branches Amt. in lakhs Total Advances Urban Branches Rural Branches April 25,770.28 8,481.74 17,288.54 May 25,903.29 8,507.52 17,395.77 June 26,…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1907/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranthe Karnataka Bank Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 2(1) Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Mangalore Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle – 2(1) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27-03-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Mangaluru & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Banking Company Carrying On Banking Business. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish
Section 14A

…8 of his order and observed that the view taken by him in earlier years has been clarified in Explanation-2. Thus, according to Ld CIT(A) as well as by the revenue that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (2012)( 343 ITR 270) has been undone by the Parliament by inserting Explanation-2 in sec. 36(a)(vii) of the Act by Finance Act 2013. 7.6 The Ld A.R, however, contended that Explanation-2 has not changed the legal position for claiming deduction of bad debts written off u/s 36(1)(vii) and also claiming PBBD u/s 36(1)(viia) for banks having rural branches. According t…

M/S Siddaganga Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tumkur

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143Section 37

…he provision 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 as in t…

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
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 IT(TP)A No.2556/Bang/2019 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 40 of 85 decisions and confirmed the disallowance originally made in the draft assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 22.3 We heard the parties on this issue and pe…

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2962/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…1 ITA Nos.2171 &2962/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Maharashtra State Co-op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (OSD)-1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Maharashtra State Co- Vs. DCIT-(OSD)-1 op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAM9669E Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-1(3)(2) Vs. M/s Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5th Floor Co-op…

Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…1 ITA Nos.2171 &2962/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Maharashtra State Co-op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (OSD)-1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Maharashtra State Co- Vs. DCIT-(OSD)-1 op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAM9669E Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-1(3)(2) Vs. M/s Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5th Floor Co-op…

The United Western Bank Ltd. (Through Successors Idbi Bank Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 289/PUN/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 289/PN/2010 (Assessment Year 2002-03) IDBI Bank Ltd. (successor to the United Asst. Commissioner of Western bank Ltd.) Income Tax (LTU), 22nd Floor, Taxation Cell, WTC Complex, Vs. IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai -400 005 Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO.AABCI8842G (successor to AABCT0177D) Assessee by : Shri C Narseh, AR Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar/ Vivek Upadhay, DR Date of hearing: 12.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 23.03.2022 O R D E R…

The United Western Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1339/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 289/PN/2010 (Assessment Year 2002-03) IDBI Bank Ltd. (successor to the United Asst. Commissioner of Western bank Ltd.) Income Tax (LTU), 22nd Floor, Taxation Cell, WTC Complex, Vs. IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai -400 005 Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO.AABCI8842G (successor to AABCT0177D) Assessee by : Shri C Narseh, AR Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar/ Vivek Upadhay, DR Date of hearing: 12.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 23.03.2022 O R D E R…

The United Western Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1738/PUN/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 289/PN/2010 (Assessment Year 2002-03) IDBI Bank Ltd. (successor to the United Asst. Commissioner of Western bank Ltd.) Income Tax (LTU), 22nd Floor, Taxation Cell, WTC Complex, Vs. IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai -400 005 Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO.AABCI8842G (successor to AABCT0177D) Assessee by : Shri C Narseh, AR Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar/ Vivek Upadhay, DR Date of hearing: 12.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 23.03.2022 O R D E R…

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

ITA 4951/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

…oviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, apply only to rural advances. 57. We noted that, as reliance placed by assessee, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court 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…