CIT v. Hotel Ambassador

253 ITR 430High Court2002#4387 most cited

What is CIT v. Hotel Ambassador authority for?

Deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts is allowed only if the assessee debits the amount in its accounts as irrecoverable. Merely making a provision for Non-Performing Assets (NPA) does not constitute a write-off.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hotel Ambassador · Section 36(1)(vii) · bad debt deduction · write off · provision for NPA · irrecoverable · debiting accounts · Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 31(3)section 36(l)(vii)section 197asection 197a(1a)section 36(1)(v)preliminary expensessection 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(viii)section 43b(f)section 36(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hotel Ambassador

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)

…(352 ITR 577)(SC), wherein it was held that the mere making of provision for NPA cannot be considered as write off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. He also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador (2002)(253 ITR 430)(Ker), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Accordingly, the AO took the view that the amount of bad debts ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 7 of 46 claimed by the assessee was mere provision and not actual write off. Before the AO, the…

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)

…(352 ITR 577)(SC), wherein it was held that the mere making of provision for NPA cannot be considered as write off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. He also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador (2002)(253 ITR 430)(Ker), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Accordingly, the AO took the view that the amount of bad debts ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 7 of 46 claimed by the assessee was mere provision and not actual write off. Before the AO, the…

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)

…NPA cannot be considered as write off u/s.36(1)(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACIT 352 ITR 577. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hotel Ambassador [2002] 253 ITR 430, wherein it was held :-30-: ITA. Nos: 620 & 635/Chny/2020 that the deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. • Exactly, on similar facts and grounds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU vs Vijaya Bank [2021] i…

METAL CLOSURES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 941/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 148Section 28Section 36(2)(i)

…ase, the income is not gone into computation of income by offering the income generated from such debt to taxation, the claim of assessee has been denied by placing reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Ambassador 253 ITR 430 (Ker.). Now the plea of the assessee is that it has to be allowed u/s 28 of the Act. The section 28 of the Act reads as follows: “28. Profits and gains of business or profession. - The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business of profession",- (i)the profits and gains of any business or profe…

KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY

ITA 678/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…A cannot be considered as write off u/s.36(1 )(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACJT 352 ITR 577. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by Hon 'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hotel Ambassador [2002] 253 ITR 430, wherein it was held that the deduction u/s.36(l)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Exactly, on similar facts and grounds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU vsVijaya Bank [2021] in 130 taxmann.com 149. Reliance is furthe…

KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY

ITA 677/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…A cannot be considered as write off u/s.36(1 )(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACJT 352 ITR 577. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by Hon 'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hotel Ambassador [2002] 253 ITR 430, wherein it was held that the deduction u/s.36(l)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Exactly, on similar facts and grounds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU vsVijaya Bank [2021] in 130 taxmann.com 149. Reliance is furthe…

DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

ITA 1343/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…A cannot be considered as write off u/s.36(1 )(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACJT 352 ITR 577. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by Hon 'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hotel Ambassador [2002] 253 ITR 430, wherein it was held that the deduction u/s.36(l)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Exactly, on similar facts and grounds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU vsVijaya Bank [2021] in 130 taxmann.com 149. Reliance is furthe…

DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

ITA 1321/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 677 & 678/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1343 & 1321/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Income Tax, V. Central Office, Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Anandhan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Anandhan, CA and Smt. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…A cannot be considered as write off u/s.36(1 )(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACJT 352 ITR 577. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by Hon 'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hotel Ambassador [2002] 253 ITR 430, wherein it was held that the deduction u/s.36(l)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Exactly, on similar facts and grounds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU vsVijaya Bank [2021] in 130 taxmann.com 149. Reliance is furthe…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,,KUMBAKONAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1),, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 672/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 36(1)(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACIT (352 ITR 577). DR also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador [2002] (253 ITR 430), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. However, ITAT has ignored the significance of these landmark decisions. 6. Exactly, on similar fact and ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-ta…

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 36(1)(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACIT (352 ITR 577). DR also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador [2002] (253 ITR 430), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. However, ITAT has ignored the significance of these landmark decisions. 6. Exactly, on similar fact and ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-ta…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 36(1)(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACIT (352 ITR 577). DR also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador [2002] (253 ITR 430), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. However, ITAT has ignored the significance of these landmark decisions. 6. Exactly, on similar fact and ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-ta…

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 36(1)(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACIT (352 ITR 577). DR also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador [2002] (253 ITR 430), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. However, ITAT has ignored the significance of these landmark decisions. 6. Exactly, on similar fact and ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-ta…

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1121/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 36(1)(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACIT (352 ITR 577). DR also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador [2002] (253 ITR 430), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. However, ITAT has ignored the significance of these landmark decisions. 6. Exactly, on similar fact and ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-ta…

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

…, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 36(1)(vii) as held by Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies vs ACIT (352 ITR 577). DR also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador [2002] (253 ITR 430), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act is allowable only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. However, ITAT has ignored the significance of these landmark decisions. 6. Exactly, on similar fact and ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the SLP in the case of Commissioner of Income-ta…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…thout any distinction between rural advances and other advances. The AO also relied on the judgements of Southern Technologies Vs. CIT reported in 352 ITR 577(SC), M/s Vijaya Bank vs CIT reported in 320 ITR 166 (SC) & CIT vs Hotel Ambassdor [2002] reported in 253 ITR 430 (Ker). Thus, only the excess amount of bad debts written off, remaining after such set off, is admissible for deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii). 7.2 On appeal, the assessee submitted before the CIT(Appeals) that it had written off total amount of Rs.1296,56,16,023 during the year. The entire sum of Rs.130,81,22,967 being bad debts written off by rural br…

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…thout any distinction between rural advances and other advances. The AO also relied on the judgements of Southern Technologies Vs. CIT reported in 352 ITR 577(SC), M/s Vijaya Bank vs CIT reported in 320 ITR 166 (SC) & CIT vs Hotel Ambassdor [2002] reported in 253 ITR 430 (Ker). Thus, only the excess amount of bad debts written off, remaining after such set off, is admissible for deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii). 7.2 On appeal, the assessee submitted before the CIT(Appeals) that it had written off total amount of Rs.1296,56,16,023 during the year. The entire sum of Rs.130,81,22,967 being bad debts written off by rural br…

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 51

…thout any distinction between rural advances and other advances. The AO also relied on the judgements of Southern Technologies Vs. CIT reported in 352 ITR 577(SC), M/s Vijaya Bank vs CIT reported in 320 ITR 166 (SC) & CIT vs Hotel Ambassdor [2002] reported in 253 ITR 430 (Ker). Thus, only the excess amount of bad debts written off, remaining after such set off, is admissible for deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii). 7.2 On appeal, the assessee submitted before the CIT(Appeals) that it had written off total amount of Rs.1296,56,16,023 during the year. The entire sum of Rs.130,81,22,967 being bad debts written off by rural br…

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…(352 ITR 577)(SC), wherein it was held that the mere making of provision for NPA cannot be considered as write off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. He also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador (2002)(253 ITR 430)(Ker), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Accordingly, the AO took the view that the amount of bad debts claimed by the assessee was mere provision and not actual write off. Before the AO, the assessee had placed reliance on the decision rendere…

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…(352 ITR 577)(SC), wherein it was held that the mere making of provision for NPA cannot be considered as write off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. He also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador (2002)(253 ITR 430)(Ker), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Accordingly, the AO took the view that the amount of bad debts claimed by the assessee was mere provision and not actual write off. Before the AO, the assessee had placed reliance on the decision rendere…

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

…(352 ITR 577)(SC), wherein it was held that the mere making of provision for NPA cannot be considered as write off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. He also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel Ambassador (2002)(253 ITR 430)(Ker), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Accordingly, the AO took the view The Karnataka Bank Ltd. that the amount of bad debts claimed by the assessee was mere provision and not actual write off. Before the AO, the assessee had placed relianc…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2