PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramina Bank

408 ITR 393High Court2018#8465 most cited

What is PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramina Bank authority for?

For the purposes of the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the aggregate average advances made by rural branches of a scheduled bank should be computed by aggregating separately the advances made by each rural branch as outstanding at the end of the last day of each month comprised in the previous year. The method of taking only the loans and advances made during the year is incorrect.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramina Bank · Section 36(1)(viia) · aggregate average advances · rural branches · scheduled bank · Rule 6ABA · computation of deduction · loans and advances

Issues it is cited on

section 2(26)section 129(1)section 2(17)section 36(2)(v)section 2(9)section 5(c)section 36(i)section 41(4)section 194a(1)section 59section 194a(3)section 36(2)

Judgments citing PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramina Bank

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 527/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19
Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…e considered for the purpose of this deduction. Thus, these grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes." The reasoning of this Tribunal was approved by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Coutt in the case of PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramina Bank [2018] 408 ITR 393 (Cal), wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court upheld the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 6ABA of the Rules for the purse of s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act that only aggregate average advance made by rural branches of a scheduled bank should be computed by aggregate separately the advance made by each rural branch as outstanding at the end of…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 526/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18
Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…e considered for the purpose of this deduction. Thus, these grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes." The reasoning of this Tribunal was approved by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Coutt in the case of PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramina Bank [2018] 408 ITR 393 (Cal), wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court upheld the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 6ABA of the Rules for the purse of s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act that only aggregate average advance made by rural branches of a scheduled bank should be computed by aggregate separately the advance made by each rural branch as outstanding at the end of…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 517/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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

…considered for the purpose of this deduction. Thus, these grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes." The reasoning of this Tribunal was approved by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Coutt in the case of PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramina Bank [2018] 408 ITR 393 (Cal), wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court upheld the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 6ABA of the Rules for the purse of s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act that only aggregate average advance made by rural branches of a scheduled bank should be computed by aggregate separately the advance made by each rural branch as outstanding at the end of…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Indian Bank, Chennai

ITA 516/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M.Sanjeev Aditya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Nayani Swapna, CIT
Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…idered for the purpose of this deduction.\r Thus, these grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes."\r The reasoning of this Tribunal was approved by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Coutt\r in the case of PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramina Bank [2018] 408 ITR 393\r (Cal), wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court upheld the interpretation of the\r provisions of Rule 6ABA of the Rules for the purse of s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act that\r only aggregate average advance made by rural branches of a scheduled bank\r should be computed by aggregate separately the advance made by each rural\r branch as outstanding at…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…the resultant figure by number of months comprised therein. This method of working is as per Rule 6ABA and the method adopted by the AO is not in accordance with law. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- Uttarabhanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2018) 408 ITR 393 (Cal) Canara Bank (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bangalore Trib) Nizambad Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. 2014 (12) TMI 562 (Hyderabad Trib.) DCIT v. Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2014) 51 taxmann.com 194 (Chennai Trib) ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 20 of 31 DCIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. in ITA No.1485/Mds/07 order dated 30…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…the resultant figure by number of months comprised therein. This method of working is as per Rule 6ABA and the method adopted by the AO is not in accordance with law. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- Uttarabhanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2018) 408 ITR 393 (Cal) Canara Bank (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bangalore Trib) Nizambad Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. 2014 (12) TMI 562 (Hyderabad Trib.) DCIT v. Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2014) 51 taxmann.com 194 (Chennai Trib) ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 20 of 31 DCIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. in ITA No.1485/Mds/07 order dated 30…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…the resultant figure by number of months comprised therein. This method of working is as per Rule 6ABA and the method adopted by the AO is not in accordance with law. The assessee relied on the following decisions:- Uttarabhanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2018) 408 ITR 393 (Cal) Canara Bank (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bangalore Trib) Nizambad Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. 2014 (12) TMI 562 (Hyderabad Trib.) DCIT v. Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2014) 51 taxmann.com 194 (Chennai Trib) ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 20 of 31 DCIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. in ITA No.1485/Mds/07 order dated 30…

The State Bank of Patiala, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 538/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [SPECIAL BENCH MATTER] “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.510/Chandi./2017 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patialia) ……………. Appellant Local Head Office – Chandigarh, 2nd Floor Sector–17A, Chandigarh 160 017 PAN – AACCS0143D v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Circle–Patiala ITA No.538/Chandi./2017 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patialia) ………………

The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patiala), Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

ITA 1259/CHANDI/2017[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [SPECIAL BENCH MATTER] “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.510/Chandi./2017 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patialia) ……………. Appellant Local Head Office – Chandigarh, 2nd Floor Sector–17A, Chandigarh 160 017 PAN – AACCS0143D v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax …………….Respondent Circle–Patiala ITA No.538/Chandi./2017 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patialia) ………………

ACIT, Chittorgarh vs. M/S.the Banswara Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Banswara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 253/JODH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…entral Bank Ltd. (ITA No. 905/H/13 dated 10-12-2014) 2. Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs ACIT (ITA No. 846/KOL/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 order dated 8-07-2015) 3. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs CIT, 248 ITR 1 (SC) 4. Pr. CIT vs Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank 408 ITR 393 (Cal) 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative bank and during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee bank had claimed a deduction of Rs.2,98,83,507/- being provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)((viia) of the Act. The AO…

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2169/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA &
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)

…f ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA No.1497/Chny/2013 for assessment year 2007-08 vide order dated 28.02.2019 and moreover this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of PCIT vs. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank [2018] 408 ITR 393. In view of the above, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that both the issues are covered, as noted above, the issue cannot be taken up under rectification proceedings. 7. We noted from the above that the issue is first of all highly debatable and requires legal arguments. Even otherwise both the issues i.e., depreciation on investments and…

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-bank is partly allowed

ITA 54/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 54/Chny/2018 "नधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Registered & Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle 2(1), Karur 639002. Tiruchirapalli. Pan : Aaact 3373J

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ii)(a) citing no tax effect on the issue on the same lines of this order for assessment year 2010-11 & 2011-12. In this regard, he relied on this tribunal decision in its own case (2019) 72 ITR (Trib) 26 (Chennai) and Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2018) 408 ITR 393 (Cal). 9.1 On the above issue, the Revenue has also filed cross appeal pleading that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the provisional figures of census data available on first day of relevant financial year, while allowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court o…

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-bank is partly allowed

ITA 3197/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 54/Chny/2018 "नधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Registered & Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle 2(1), Karur 639002. Tiruchirapalli. Pan : Aaact 3373J

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ii)(a) citing no tax effect on the issue on the same lines of this order for assessment year 2010-11 & 2011-12. In this regard, he relied on this tribunal decision in its own case (2019) 72 ITR (Trib) 26 (Chennai) and Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2018) 408 ITR 393 (Cal). 9.1 On the above issue, the Revenue has also filed cross appeal pleading that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the provisional figures of census data available on first day of relevant financial year, while allowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court o…

PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramina Bank (408 ITR 393) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax