South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

262 ITR 579High Court2003#2420 most cited

What is South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For banks, bad debts written off from non-rural advances are not subject to the limitations of the provisos to sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii), as these provisos apply only to rural advances; section 36(1)(viia) also applies exclusively to rural advances. Additionally, depreciation on investments valued at market price on the balance sheet date is eligible for deduction.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

South Indian Bank Ltd v CIT · 262 ITR 579 · bad debts allowance · non-rural advances · section 36(1)(vii) proviso · section 36(1)(viia) scope · section 36(1)(viii) proviso · depreciation on investments · market price valuation · bank income tax

Also reported as

49 Taxmann.com 100

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 244ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 197a(1a)section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)section 36(1)(v)preliminary expensessection 197asection 36(1)(viii)section 35dsection 135section 197section 36(2)section 36(1)(viia)

Judgments citing South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…18. It is submitted that the assessee claimed any amount as a deduction by way of note to the return of income. It was submitted that the said claim was made in view of the Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of South Indian bank reported 262 ITR 579, wherein Hon’ble Court took a view that if the amount of bad debts actually written of in the books of the assessee represents only debts arising out of non-rural (urban) advances, the elements thereof in the assessment is not effected, controlled, or limited in any way by the proviso to section 36 (i) (vii). 11.2. The assessee submitted that tho…

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…18. It is submitted that the assessee claimed any amount as a deduction by way of note to the return of income. It was submitted that the said claim was made in view of the Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of South Indian bank reported 262 ITR 579, wherein Hon’ble Court took a view that if the amount of bad debts actually written of in the books of the assessee represents only debts arising out of non-rural (urban) advances, the elements thereof in the assessment is not effected, controlled, or limited in any way by the proviso to section 36 (i) (vii). 11.2. The assessee submitted that tho…

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

…s arising out of non-rural advance is, the allowance thereof in the assessment is not affected, controlled, or limited in any way by the proviso to section 36 (1) (viii). Similar view was also of the honourable Kerala High Court in case of South Indian Ltd in 262 ITR 579. Accordingly, debtsthat is actually written of which are not arising out ` of the rural advances, are not affected by the proviso to clause (vii) and that only those bad debts which arise out of rural advances are to be limited in accordance with the proviso. 116) The learned assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee based on the…

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

…ising out of non-rural advance is, the allowance thereof in the assessment is not affected, controlled, or limited in any way by the proviso to section 36 (1) (viii). Similar view was also of the honourable Kerala High Court in case of South Indian Ltd in 262 ITR 579. Accordingly, debtsthat is actually written of which are not arising out Page | 88 of the rural advances, are not affected by the proviso to clause (vii) and that only those bad debts which arise out of rural advances are to be limited in accordance with the proviso. 116) The learned assessing officer rejected the contention of the assesse…

M/S PALLIPURAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO NON CORP WARD 2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, and it’s stay petition, dismissed as infructuous

ITA 322/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Alan P Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 154Section 156Section 234ASection 234A(1)

…e, and clearly a mistake, rectifiable u/s. 154. Finally, we consider the aspect of computation of interest, on which, again, no issue was raised by the assessee. The assessment being for the first time, even as observed in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 517 (Ker), albeit in the 3 | P a g e ITA No.322 & SA 59/Coch/2023 (AY 2011-12) Pallipuram SCB Ltd. v. ITO context of s. 234B, which is in para materia, as also by the Tribunal in Mariamma Joseph v. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 672/Coch/2022, dated 28.3.2024). The action of the AO is in clear conformity of the provision, admitting, again, no two views and,…

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

…in CIT vs City Union Bank (Supra), has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court, after considering relevant facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd vs CIT [2003] 262 ITR 579, held that depreciation on investment as per market price as on the date of balance sheet is eligible for deduction. In the present case, the :-21-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 assessee has followed different method of accounting for the purpose of Income tax Act and claimed that it has investments under one c…

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

…in CIT vs City Union Bank (Supra), has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court, after considering relevant facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd vs CIT [2003] 262 ITR 579, held that depreciation on investment as per market price as on the date of balance sheet is eligible for deduction. In the present case, the :-21-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 assessee has followed different method of accounting for the purpose of Income tax Act and claimed that it has investments under one c…

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

…in CIT vs City Union Bank (Supra), has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court, after considering relevant facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd vs CIT [2003] 262 ITR 579, held that depreciation on investment as per market price as on the date of balance sheet is eligible for deduction. In the present case, the :-21-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 assessee has followed different method of accounting for the purpose of Income tax Act and claimed that it has investments under one c…

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

…in CIT vs City Union Bank (Supra), has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court, after considering relevant facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd vs CIT [2003] 262 ITR 579, held that depreciation on investment as per market price as on the date of balance sheet is eligible for deduction. In the present case, the :-21-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 assessee has followed different method of accounting for the purpose of Income tax Act and claimed that it has investments under one c…

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

…in CIT vs City Union Bank (Supra), has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court, after considering relevant facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd vs CIT [2003] 262 ITR 579, held that depreciation on investment as per market price as on the date of balance sheet is eligible for deduction. In the present case, the :-21-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 assessee has followed different method of accounting for the purpose of Income tax Act and claimed that it has investments under one c…

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

…in CIT vs City Union Bank (Supra), has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court, after considering relevant facts and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd vs CIT [2003] 262 ITR 579, held that depreciation on investment as per market price as on the date of balance sheet is eligible for deduction. In the present case, the :-21-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 assessee has followed different method of accounting for the purpose of Income tax Act and claimed that it has investments under one c…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1093/MUM/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 State Bank Of India Principal Commissioner Of Financial Reporting & Vs. Income Tax-2, Mumbai. Taxation Department, 3Rd Floor , Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan No. Aaacs8577K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 State Bank of India Principal Commissioner of Financial Reporting and Vs. Income Tax-2, Mumbai. Taxation Department, 3rd Floor , Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 PAN No. AAACS8577K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla & Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARs Revenue by : Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad Mr. Choudhary Arunkumar Singh, DRs Last Date of Hearing : 05/07/2019 Date of pronou…

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

…d the Tribunal sustained the order of the Ld.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…

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

…d the Tribunal sustained the order of the Ld.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…

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

…d the Tribunal sustained the order of the Ld.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…

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

…d the Tribunal sustained the order of the Ld.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…

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

…d the Tribunal sustained the order of the Ld.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…

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

…d the Tribunal sustained the order of the Ld.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…

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

…d the Tribunal sustained the order of the Ld.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…

M/S.THE NILAMBUR CO-OP URBAN BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, TIRUR

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

ITA 296/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.RajakannanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…first appellate authority. The CIT(A) passed three separate orders confirming the view taken by the Assessing Officer. In doing so, the CIT(A) followed the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2014) 49 Taxmann.com 100 (Ker.)]. 6. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax Authorities. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the assessment orders and the orders of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the…

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3