South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

262 ITR 579High Court2003#2417 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 366,470 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

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 295/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

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…

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 294/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

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…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…e is squarely covered from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs M/s Bank of Baroda for A.Y. 2005-06 (ITA No.2927/Mum/2011 etc.) order dated 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4.…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…e is squarely covered from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs M/s Bank of Baroda for A.Y. 2005-06 (ITA No.2927/Mum/2011 etc.) order dated 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4.…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…e is squarely covered from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs M/s Bank of Baroda for A.Y. 2005-06 (ITA No.2927/Mum/2011 etc.) order dated 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4.…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…e is squarely covered from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs M/s Bank of Baroda for A.Y. 2005-06 (ITA No.2927/Mum/2011 etc.) order dated 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 4.4.…

The Baba Nag Rice & Genral Mills, Amritsar vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 375/ASR/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 375/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Sh. Sudarshan Kapoor (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 234B(3)Section 244A

…learly, section 234B(3) only seeks to charge mandatory interest u/s. 234B on the increased tax liability on account of enhancement in assessed income on reassessment/recomputation. Reliance is placed on the decision in the South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 517 (Ker). The assessee meets this reliance on the basis of admission of SLP by the Apex Court there against [SLP (C) No. 122 & 12288 of 2010 dated 15.02.2016 (reported at 3 Baba Naga Rice v. Asst. CIT [2016] 382 ITR (St.) 1)]. The Apex Court in Kunahayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 286 (SC) clarified that on account of leave to appe…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai

ITA 3821/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri S. Anathan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswarao-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “डी मुंबई डी डी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ डी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “D”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं रिवश सूद एवं रिवश सूद रिवश सूद, "याियक रिवश सूद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3821/Mum/2009, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" ACIT-2(3)…

The DCIT, Cochin vs. M/S Appollo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 53/COCH/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jan 2018AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. A.Santhom Bose [CIT-DR]For Respondent: Sri. V.Sathyanarayanan, CA
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 234B(3)Section 234B(4)Section 263

…me Tax, Cochin [AIR 200 I SC 254]. However, all of these will become favourable to Revenue only when there is an increase in the income assessed and taxes emanded from regular assessment to reassessment. j) In the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2002P 325 ITR 517 (Ker), the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decided on a case where interest u/s 234B(3) was held to be chargeable until the date of the second reassessment order passed u/s 147 when such interest was not charged u/s 234B(1) in the original assessment order passed u/s 143( I) of the Act as well as in a first reassessment order passed u/s 147. In its dec…

Triway Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 932/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.932/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of No.14, Jaffer Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Company Circle Iii(2) Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Palanichamy, IRS, JCIT
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.932/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. M/s. Triway Forwarders Pvt. Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of No.14, Jaffer Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Company Circle III(2) Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [PAN AAACT 2874J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. N. Devanathan, Advocate ""…

Auto Shell Cast Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.931/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Respondent: Shri M. Palanichamy, JCIT
Section 14ASection 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.931/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2013-2014 M/s. Auto Shell Cast Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, 10, SIDCO Indl. Estate, Corporate Circle 1, Kurichi, Coimbatore Coimbatore 641 021. [PAN AABCA 6619F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. J. Sreevidya and अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Smt. G…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Prathma Bank, Moradabad

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4090/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4090/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Prathma Bank, Tax, Circle-1, Ramganga Vihar, Moradabad Moradabad (U.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.04.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Bareilly.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ld tent amount to contempt of court unless, of course, the contrary is established by law. Moreover, these findings find support from the verdict of the Kerala High Court.” 6. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs CIT 262 ITR 579 (Ker.) " Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT (2010) 228 CTR 440 (SC) 7. It was further submitted as under: “3. You have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT and other which, according to you restricts the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) to the amount of reserve created in the books…

M.K. Creations, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3885/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2010-11 M/S M.K. Creations, Income Tax Officer C/O- Shankarlal Jain & Ward-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Associates, Earnest House, Vs. 12, Engineer Building, Nariman Point, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaafm2004J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shankarlal Jain Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 06/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 50Section 72

…see is squarely covered from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs M/s Bank of Baroda for A.Y. 2005-06 (ITA No.2927/Mum/2011 etc.) order dated 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Bank v/s CIT (SC) 323 ITR 167. 2.3.…

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)

…able 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 Indian Bank Ltd vs CIT 262 ITR 579 (Ker) 2. Bank of Baroda vs ACIT 3. Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd vs Addl CIT 36 ITR 131 (Hyd) 4. ACIT vs State Bank of Travancore (2009) 121 TTJ 418 (ITAT Cochin Bench) 5. CIT vs Bank of Rajasthan Ltd 124 Taxman 781 (Raj) 8.1. It was also submitted by the Ld. Counsel that since the assessee did not have any rural advances, it was no…

DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Control Print (India) Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2005/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit(Osd), Range-8(1), M/S Control Print (India) Ltd. Room No.260A, 2Nd Floor, C-106, Hind Saurashtra बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, M.V. Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Marol Naka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacc5378C

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

…essee is squarely covered the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs M/s Bank of Baroda for A.Y. 2005-06 (ITA No.2927/Mum/2011 etc.) order dated 25/07/2014. The following cases also supports the case of the assessee. i) South Indian Bank v/s CIT, 262 ITR 579 (Kar.); ii) DCIT v/s Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., 267 ITR 52, ITAT Cochin Special Bench; 5 M/s Control Print (India) Ltd. iii) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v/s DCIT, [2001[ 74 ITD 203 (Jaipur Bench); iv) Bank of Baroda v/s JCIT, ITAT “B” Bench, Mumbai, for A.Y. 1996–97, 1997–98 and 2000–01; v) TRF Ltd. v/s CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC) and Vijaya Ban…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…mounting, to Rs. 903,37,86,609/-, being the bad doubts written off pertaining to non rural branches relying on the decision of the ITAT in the case of the assessee for the AY 04-05 as well as the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT V South Indian Bank in 262 ITR 579. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the said decision of the ITAT has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed in the Honorable High Court of Karnataka. 3) The CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 16,77,57,498/- being expenditure for earning exempt income relying…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…mounting, to Rs. 903,37,86,609/-, being the bad doubts written off pertaining to non rural branches relying on the decision of the ITAT in the case of the assessee for the AY 04-05 as well as the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT V South Indian Bank in 262 ITR 579. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the said decision of the ITAT has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed in the Honorable High Court of Karnataka. 3) The CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 16,77,57,498/- being expenditure for earning exempt income relying…

Addl.Ci.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…mounting, to Rs. 903,37,86,609/-, being the bad doubts written off pertaining to non rural branches relying on the decision of the ITAT in the case of the assessee for the AY 04-05 as well as the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT V South Indian Bank in 262 ITR 579. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the said decision of the ITAT has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed in the Honorable High Court of Karnataka. 3) The CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 16,77,57,498/- being expenditure for earning exempt income relying…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…mounting, to Rs. 903,37,86,609/-, being the bad doubts written off pertaining to non rural branches relying on the decision of the ITAT in the case of the assessee for the AY 04-05 as well as the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT V South Indian Bank in 262 ITR 579. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the said decision of the ITAT has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed in the Honorable High Court of Karnataka. 3) The CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 16,77,57,498/- being expenditure for earning exempt income relying…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 601/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

…mounting, to Rs. 903,37,86,609/-, being the bad doubts written off pertaining to non rural branches relying on the decision of the ITAT in the case of the assessee for the AY 04-05 as well as the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT V South Indian Bank in 262 ITR 579. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the said decision of the ITAT has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has been filed in the Honorable High Court of Karnataka. 3) The CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 16,77,57,498/- being expenditure for earning exempt income relying…