Chennai in Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT

139 ITD 154Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16763 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Chennai in Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT

M/S A394 VNR CO-OP URBAN BANK LTD,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ACIT,NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 385/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 385/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 A394 Vnr Co-Op Urban Bank Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 316, Theppam West Non-Corporate Circle-2, Bazzar, Madurai. Near Theppam, Virudhunagar – 626 001. [Pan: Aabaa-1326-M] अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…nk itself has treated such assets as recoverable, any provision made on such assets cannot be considered as a provision for bad and doubtful debts. As per the judgement pronounced in the case of Bharath Overseas :-4-: ITA. No: 385/Chny/2022 Bank Ltd Vs CIT (139 ITD 154) (Chennal Tribunal), the provision for standard assets could not be considered as provision for bad and doubtful debts, and hence could not be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. In view of the above, the provision created for Standard Assets amounting to Rs.8,25,500/- does not qualify for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The as…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. THE GUNTUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,, TENALI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2013-14

ITA 78/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.77 & 78/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Acit Vs. The Guntur District Circle-1(1) Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Guntur Tenali, Guntur [Pan : Aaatt6101H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Appala Raju, DR
Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

…is within section 36(1)(viia)but it does not relate to provision on standard assets. Hence the case law relied up on by the Ld.AR is distinguishable on facts and not applicable. The AO relied on the decision of ITAT,Chennai in Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd vs CIT, 139 ITD 154 where in the coordinate bench held as under: “It is clear from the above that it is not a standard allowance which is given, but, the allowance is subject to the actual provision made by the assessee, which in no case shall exceed 7.5% of the gross total income. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that whatever the provision it had actually m…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE GUNTUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,, TENALI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2013-14

ITA 77/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.77 & 78/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Acit Vs. The Guntur District Circle-1(1) Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Guntur Tenali, Guntur [Pan : Aaatt6101H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Appala Raju, DR
Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

…is within section 36(1)(viia)but it does not relate to provision on standard assets. Hence the case law relied up on by the Ld.AR is distinguishable on facts and not applicable. The AO relied on the decision of ITAT,Chennai in Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd vs CIT, 139 ITD 154 where in the coordinate bench held as under: “It is clear from the above that it is not a standard allowance which is given, but, the allowance is subject to the actual provision made by the assessee, which in no case shall exceed 7.5% of the gross total income. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that whatever the provision it had actually m…

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)

…f Rs.47,93,922/- for the AY 2010-11 and Rs.69,37,085/- for the A.Y.2011-12. The AO relied on the decision in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT(SC) 320 ITR 577 and the decision rendered by ITAT, Chennai in the case of Bhart Overseas Bank Vs. CIT (139 ITD 154) and the Instruction No.17/2008 of CBDT dated 26.11.2008. 4 ITA Nos.326 &327/Viz/2016 and CO Nos.53&54-Viz-2016 M/s Chaitanya Godavari Grammena Bank, Guntur 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and furnished the computation of provision for bad and doubtful assets and the deduction entitled by the as…

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)

…f Rs.47,93,922/- for the AY 2010-11 and Rs.69,37,085/- for the A.Y.2011-12. The AO relied on the decision in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. JCIT(SC) 320 ITR 577 and the decision rendered by ITAT, Chennai in the case of Bhart Overseas Bank Vs. CIT (139 ITD 154) and the Instruction No.17/2008 of CBDT dated 26.11.2008. 4 ITA Nos.326 &327/Viz/2016 and CO Nos.53&54-Viz-2016 M/s Chaitanya Godavari Grammena Bank, Guntur 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and furnished the computation of provision for bad and doubtful assets and the deduction entitled by the as…

Chennai in Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT (139 ITD 154) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax