CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

349 ITR 705Supreme Court of India2012#3275 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 366,470 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.

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1801/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-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2817/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: B. Sriniwas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM The Dy. Commissioner of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 BKC, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAACK4409J Cross Objection No. 38/Mum/2018 (Arising in ITA No. 2817/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of 27 BKC, G Block, Bandra Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai R. No. 552, 5 th Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. (…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1335/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…s the finding of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Now the law is quite settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case reported in 349 ITR 705 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (343 ITR 270) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are independent of each other. We remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the amount of allowance in accordance with…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

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

ITA 1265/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…s the finding of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Now the law is quite settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case reported in 349 ITR 705 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (343 ITR 270) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are independent of each other. We remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the amount of allowance in accordance with…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

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

ITA 1397/BANG/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…s the finding of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Now the law is quite settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case reported in 349 ITR 705 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (343 ITR 270) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are independent of each other. We remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the amount of allowance in accordance with…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

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

ITA 1396/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…s the finding of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Now the law is quite settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case reported in 349 ITR 705 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (343 ITR 270) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are independent of each other. We remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the amount of allowance in accordance with…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1335/BANG/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…s the finding of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Now the law is quite settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case reported in 349 ITR 705 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (343 ITR 270) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are independent of each other. We remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the amount of allowance in accordance with…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1334/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…s the finding of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Now the law is quite settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case reported in 349 ITR 705 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (343 ITR 270) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are independent of each other. We remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the amount of allowance in accordance with…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore

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

ITA 753/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…s the finding of the ld.CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Now the law is quite settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee’s own case reported in 349 ITR 705 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (343 ITR 270) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are independent of each other. We remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the amount of allowance in accordance with…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

ITA 1929/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: R P Meena
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी जोिग"दर"सह "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"",लेखा सद"य Before S/Sh.JoginderSingh,Judicial Member and Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1657/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT-3(2), M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 6th Floor, Room No.608 36-38A, Nariman Bhavan Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 227, Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. PAN: AAACK 4409 J आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1929/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Ye…

The Greater Bombay Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 1112/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…e provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs Karnataka Bank Ltd 349 ITR 705 (SC) wherein it was held that scheduled commercial banks are entitled to benefit of write off of irrecoverable debts u/s 36(1)(vii) in addition to deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia). Following judgments were also relied upon by 6 I.T.A. No.1112/Mum/2015 the Ld. Counsel in support of this proposition:- 1. South India…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 2142/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Ltu, Centre-1, M/S Union Bank Of India, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacu0564G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Union Bank Of India, Dcit Ltu, Centre-1, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacu0564G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Kemwal (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 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 assessees. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no reason t…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 1627/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Ltu, Centre-1, M/S Union Bank Of India, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacu0564G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Union Bank Of India, Dcit Ltu, Centre-1, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacu0564G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Kemwal (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 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 assessees. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no reason t…

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6921/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6921/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 बनाम/ The Acit, Union Bank Of India, Large Tax Payer Unit, Union Bank Bhavan, Vs. Centre-1, 29Th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6980/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, The Acit, Union Bank Bhavan, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vs. 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, World Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6922/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम/ The Acit, Union Bank Of India, Large Tax Payer Unit, Union Bank Bhavan, Vs. Centre-1, 29Th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacu 0564G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Department By: Shri G.M. Dass ""यथ" क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Dass
Section 1Section 2Section 2(45)Section 24ASection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…ated 18.1.2003 passed in ITA Nos. 631/M/2010 & 6349/M/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 u/s. 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 assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no reason to inter…

ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4842/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4678/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Central Accounts Department, Vs. World Trade Center, 6Th Floor, Cuff Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 10Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80L

…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 assessees. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no reason t…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 4678/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4678/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Central Accounts Department, Vs. World Trade Center, 6Th Floor, Cuff Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 10Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80L

…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 assessees. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no reason t…