CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

349 ITR 705Supreme Court of India2012#3280 most cited

What is CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd. authority for?

Advances made by banks that become bad debts are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) if they meet the conditions specified in Section 36(2).

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd. · 349 ITR 705 · Section 36(1)(vii) · Section 36(2) · bad debts · bank advances · deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(viii)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetssection 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 36(1)(viia)section 80hsection 36(2)right to receivesection 80hhcsection 80hhinterest on securitiessection 36(1)(vii)section 41

Judgments citing CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. THE SUTEX CO.OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 780/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.780/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. The Sutex Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ward – 1(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Bank Block, Surat Textile Surat Market, Ring Road, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat2953Q (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025

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

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.780/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) The ITO, Vs. The Sutex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ward – 1(1)(1), 2nd Floor, Bank Block, Surat Textile Surat Market, Ring Road, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAT2953Q (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CA Date of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 05/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA…

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

…rsus 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 ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 103. 119) He fairly invited our attention also to the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case passed on 12 July 2021 for assessment year 2001 – 02 and 2002 – 03 wherein identical issue has been inadvertently deci…

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

…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 ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 103 (Delhi). 119) He fairly invited our attention also to the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case passed on 12 July 2021 for assessment year 2001 – 02 and 2002 – 03 wherein identical issue has been inad…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…er Section 36(2).” 58. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras);  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC);  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi). 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non-rural advances, is Clarificatory…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…er Section 36(2).” 58. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras);  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC);  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi). 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non-rural advances, is Clarificatory…

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)

…s allowed.” 25. By following the various decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC), DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) and Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. 27 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras), we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to deduction und…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3685/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)

…s allowed.” 25. By following the various decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC), DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) and Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. 27 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras), we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to deduction und…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3779/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)

…der Section 36(2).” 58. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras)  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC)  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non- rural advances, is Clarificatory i…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2227/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…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 the 10 Union Bank of India assessees. Accordingly, we are of the view…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2229/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…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 the 10 Union Bank of India assessees. Accordingly, we are of the view…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1805/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…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 the 10 Union Bank of India assessees. Accordingly, we are of the view…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1804/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…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 the 10 Union Bank of India assessees. Accordingly, we are of the view…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…er Section 36(2).” 58. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras)  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC)  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non- 66 | P a g e State Bank of India…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…lowing judicial precedents:- 1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd ITA No.1657, 1929/M/12, 3491, 3592, 3593, 6394, 6217/M/2013 2. DCIT vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd ITA No.2817/M/16 & 38/M/18 3. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs CIT 343 ITR 270(SC) 4. CIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd 349 ITR 705 (SC), 25 taxmann.com 235 5. DCIT vs Union Bank of India ITA No.4678/Mum/2013 6. DCIT vs UCO Bank ITA No.197/Kol/2011 7. Central Bank of India vs DCIT ITA No.7428, 7485/M/2016 DCIT vs. Union Bank of India ITA No.2142, 1627/M/2014 8. 22. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The AO made disallowance as we h…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2234/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

….CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance as the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2002-03 to 2006-07 and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank [262 ITR 579] and CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd [349 ITR 705], wherein it has been held that deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is distinct and independent of the provisions of section u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act relating to allowance of bad debts and the deductions have to be allowed independently. 19. Coming to restricting the allowance for deduction…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2233/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

….CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance as the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2002-03 to 2006-07 and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank [262 ITR 579] and CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd [349 ITR 705], wherein it has been held that deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is distinct and independent of the provisions of section u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act relating to allowance of bad debts and the deductions have to be allowed independently. 19. Coming to restricting the allowance for deduction…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2232/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

….CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance as the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2002-03 to 2006-07 and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank [262 ITR 579] and CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd [349 ITR 705], wherein it has been held that deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is distinct and independent of the provisions of section u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act relating to allowance of bad debts and the deductions have to be allowed independently. 19. Coming to restricting the allowance for deduction…

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2231/MUM/2018[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

….CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance as the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2002-03 to 2006-07 and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank [262 ITR 579] and CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd [349 ITR 705], wherein it has been held that deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is distinct and independent of the provisions of section u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act relating to allowance of bad debts and the deductions have to be allowed independently. 19. Coming to restricting the allowance for deduction…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1803/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

….CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance as the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2002-03 to 2006-07 and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank [262 ITR 579] and CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd [349 ITR 705], wherein it has been held that deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is distinct and independent of the provisions of section u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act relating to allowance of bad debts and the deductions have to be allowed independently. 19. Coming to restricting the allowance for deduction…

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1802/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

….CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance as the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2002-03 to 2006-07 and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank [262 ITR 579] and CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd [349 ITR 705], wherein it has been held that deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act is distinct and independent of the provisions of section u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act relating to allowance of bad debts and the deductions have to be allowed independently. 19. Coming to restricting the allowance for deduction…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (349 ITR 705) — Cited in 36 Judgments | BharatTax