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

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/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…

Addl.CIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Canara Bank, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

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…

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

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

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…

Chandbibi Zaidi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

ITA 357/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 Mrs. Chandbibi Zaidi, Acit, Kennedy House, 2Nd Floor, Central Circle-43, बनाम/ Goregaonkar Road, R. No.659, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nana Chowk, Aayakar Bahvan, Mumbai M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaapz1431A Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit, Mrs. Chandbibi Zaidi, Central Circle-43, Kennedy House, 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ R. No.659, 6Th Floor, Goregaonkar Road, Vs. Aayakar Bahvan, Nana Chowk, M.K. Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaapz1431A

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…d by the ld. counsel for the assessee being general in nature, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 8. The next ground pertains to section 234B(3) etc of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee in view of the decision in south Indian Bank Ltd vs CIT (2003) 325 ITR 517 (Kerala) withdrew this ground, therefore, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. Now, we shall take up appeal of the Revenue (ITA No.1392/Mum/2014), wherein, first ground pertains to deleting the disallowance made on account of remuneration of Rs.3 lakh stated to be paid to workers a…

Bank of Ceylon, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

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

ITA 518/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.518/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Bank Of Ceylon , The Deputy Director Of 20/21, Casa Major Road, Vs. Income Tax, New No.2, Zerart Garden Ii Lane, International Taxation I, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacb2218C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate Shri S. Ganapathi Subramanian, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. B. Nischal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…of deduction: In the case of banks incorporated outside India, the quantum of deduction available IS 5% of the total Income (computed before making deduction under this clause and chapter VIA). Overruling the decision in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 579 (Ker) and dissenting from Dy. CIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 345 (Kar), the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in CIT vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. 326 ITR 174 (Ker)(FB) held that banks which are entitled to claim deduction of provision for bad debts in terms of cl. (viia) of s. 36(1) are covered by the proviso to cl. (vii) irrespective of…

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

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)
Section 36(1)(viia)

…viia) simultaneously. It was pointed out that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court considered the questions of law answered by two judgments of Kerala and Madras High Courts in South Indian Bank ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 21 of 49 Ltd. Vs. CIT [2003 262 ITR 579], and in CIT Vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [20071 291 ITR 144]. The ratio of the case of Kerala High Court, after considering the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and (viia), was that a scheduled bank might be having both urban and rural branches and advances were given from both branches. Having regard to the hazards involved in realising the advan…

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

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 578/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)
Section 36(1)(viia)

…viia) simultaneously. It was pointed out that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court considered the questions of law answered by two judgments of Kerala and Madras High Courts in South Indian Bank ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 21 of 49 Ltd. Vs. CIT [2003 262 ITR 579], and in CIT Vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [20071 291 ITR 144]. The ratio of the case of Kerala High Court, after considering the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and (viia), was that a scheduled bank might be having both urban and rural branches and advances were given from both branches. Having regard to the hazards involved in realising the advan…

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur

C.A. No.-001143-001143 - 2011Supreme Court17 Feb 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ted 7th April, 2006, partly allowed the appeal, particularly in relation to the claim of the appellant Bank for bad debts. Relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(2003) 262 ITR 579], the CIT(A) held that the claim of the appellant was fully supported by the said decision and since the entire bad debts written off by the bank under Section 36(1)(vii) were pertaining to urban branches only and not to the provision made for rural branches under Section 36(1)(viia), it was entitled to the deduction of the…