State Bank of Patiala v. CIT

272 ITR 54High Court2005#1850 most cited

What is State Bank of Patiala v. CIT authority for?

A claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for bad and doubtful debts is restricted to the actual amount of provision made by the assessee, as the statutory language is clear and unambiguous.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State Bank of Patiala v. CIT · Section 36(1)(viia) · bad and doubtful debts deduction · provision for bad and doubtful debts · restriction on deduction · statutory interpretation · reassessment proceedings · Section 148 · Income-tax Act 1961

Also reported as

143 Taxmann 196

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 143(3) of the Income-tax ActSection 144 of the Income-tax ActSection 144B of the Income-tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(via)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(viii)section 36(1)(vii)section 36(1)section 36gross total incomeadvance taxsection 254section 80preassessment proceedingssection 80

Judgments citing State Bank of Patiala v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Non Corp Circle II Madurai, Madurai vs. Virudhunagar District Central Co Op Bank Limited, Virudhunagar

ITA 2700/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ated 18/07/2024 relied on a decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 78 ITD(BANG). However as quoted above the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs CIT[2005] 272 ITR 54 has clearly held that "9. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Tribunal was right in holding that since the assessee had made a provision of Rs. 1,19,36,000 for bad and doubtful debts, its claim for deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) of the Act had to be restricted to that amount only. Since the language of the statute is clear and is not capable of any…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corp Circle II Madurai, Madurai vs. Virudhunagar District Central Co Op Bank Limited, Virudhunagar

ITA 2699/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2699/Chny/2025 &2700/Chny/2025 By Revenue C.O.No.92/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2699/Chny/2025)& C.O.No.93/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2700/Chny/2025) By Assessee निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Non Corp Circle Ii, Madurai, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bb Kulam Madurai-625002, Madurai, Tamil Nadu (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) V. Virudhunagar District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited 104/1, Madurai Road, Kamaraj Nagar, S.O. Virudhunagar,Virudhunagar- 626001. Tamil Nadu [Pan:Aaaav 0147 N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे//Assessee By Mr. R. Prasanna Venkatesan, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे Respondent/Revenue By Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026 :-2-:

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…ated 18/07/2024 relied on a decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 78 ITD(BANG). However as quoted above the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs CIT[2005] 272 ITR 54 has clearly held that "9. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Tribunal was right in holding that since the assessee had made a provision of Rs. 1,19,36,000 for bad and doubtful debts, its claim for deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) of the Act had to be restricted to that amount only. Since the language of the statute is clear and is not capable of any…

Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari Bank Ltd., Amreli vs. The DCIT-ACIT-2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M.Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…in the memo of computation of total income, there is no proceeding to deduct any provision under this section. The Ld. DR relied on the judgement of Punjab & Haryana High court in case of state Bank of Patiala v. CIT and Anr on 21 may, 2004 reported in [2005] 272 ITR 54. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the documents available on record. The issue of reopening of the assessment claim of provision for SBDD under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of Rs.57,00,750/- being incorrect, and therefore the assessment was reopened by the notice under section 148 of the Act. The contention of the assessee that sin…

The Virudhunagar Dist Cetnral Co- Operative Bank Limited, Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, -Dcat, Madurai-2, Virudhunagar

ITA 2790/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manoj Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

…ated 18/07/2024 relied on a decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 78 ITD(BANG). However as quoted above the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs CIT[2005] 272 ITR 54 has clearly held that "9. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Tribunal was right in holding that since the assessee had made a provision of Rs. 1,19,36,000 for bad and doubtful debts, its claim for deduction under Section 36(1) (viia) of the Act had to be restricted to that amount only. Since the language of the statute is clear and is not capab…

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.07/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank 2nd & 3rd Floor, Chandraprastha ……………. Appellant Deendayal Nagar, Nagpur 440 022 PAN – AABVA3583F v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–1(5), Nagpur ITA no.08/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank 2nd & 3rd Floor, Chandraprastha ……………. Appellant Deendayal Nagar, Nagpur 440 022 PAN – AABVA3583F v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–1(5), Nagpur Assessee by :…

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.07/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank 2nd & 3rd Floor, Chandraprastha ……………. Appellant Deendayal Nagar, Nagpur 440 022 PAN – AABVA3583F v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–1(5), Nagpur ITA no.08/Nag./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank 2nd & 3rd Floor, Chandraprastha ……………. Appellant Deendayal Nagar, Nagpur 440 022 PAN – AABVA3583F v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–1(5), Nagpur Assessee by :…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Cuddallore vs. M/S Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 981/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…. 14.3 The Chennai Tribunal in the case of The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., in ITA No.739/CHNY/2020 dated 04.11.2022 has considered the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with exactly identical issue and held as under:- “6. A bare perusal of the above shows that the deduction allowable under the above provisions is in respect of the provision made. Therefore, making of a provision for bad and doubtful debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for cl…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. ACIT, Circle-I, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 858/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…. 14.3 The Chennai Tribunal in the case of The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., in ITA No.739/CHNY/2020 dated 04.11.2022 has considered the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with exactly identical issue and held as under:- “6. A bare perusal of the above shows that the deduction allowable under the above provisions is in respect of the provision made. Therefore, making of a provision for bad and doubtful debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for cl…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. ACIT, Circle-II, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 857/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…. 14.3 The Chennai Tribunal in the case of The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., in ITA No.739/CHNY/2020 dated 04.11.2022 has considered the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with exactly identical issue and held as under:- “6. A bare perusal of the above shows that the deduction allowable under the above provisions is in respect of the provision made. Therefore, making of a provision for bad and doubtful debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for cl…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupruam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 856/CHNY/2020[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…. 14.3 The Chennai Tribunal in the case of The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., in ITA No.739/CHNY/2020 dated 04.11.2022 has considered the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with exactly identical issue and held as under:- “6. A bare perusal of the above shows that the deduction allowable under the above provisions is in respect of the provision made. Therefore, making of a provision for bad and doubtful debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for cl…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 855/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…. 14.3 The Chennai Tribunal in the case of The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., in ITA No.739/CHNY/2020 dated 04.11.2022 has considered the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with exactly identical issue and held as under:- “6. A bare perusal of the above shows that the deduction allowable under the above provisions is in respect of the provision made. Therefore, making of a provision for bad and doubtful debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for cl…

The Villupuram District Central Coopertative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 854/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…. 14.3 The Chennai Tribunal in the case of The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., in ITA No.739/CHNY/2020 dated 04.11.2022 has considered the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with exactly identical issue and held as under:- “6. A bare perusal of the above shows that the deduction allowable under the above provisions is in respect of the provision made. Therefore, making of a provision for bad and doubtful debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for cl…

The Cuddalore District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Cuddalore vs. DCIT Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2645/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…. 14.3 The Chennai Tribunal in the case of The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., in ITA No.739/CHNY/2020 dated 04.11.2022 has considered the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT, (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with exactly identical issue and held as under:- “6. A bare perusal of the above shows that the deduction allowable under the above provisions is in respect of the provision made. Therefore, making of a provision for bad and doubtful debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for cl…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1438/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Union Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Union Bank Bhavan, Tax, Circle- (Ltu)-2, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: C NareshFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)

…r section 36(1)(viia) to the provision made during the previous year on the ground that the earlier year decision in assessee's own case (AY 2005-06) in which the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 54/143 Taxman 196 has been followed cannot be applied since the said decision has been distinguished by the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sarvodaya Sahakari Bank Ltd (supra) where the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) should be allowed to the extent the provision for bad and doubtful debts availab…

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1437/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Union Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Union Bank Bhavan, Tax, Circle- (Ltu)-2, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: C NareshFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)

…r section 36(1)(viia) to the provision made during the previous year on the ground that the earlier year decision in assessee's own case (AY 2005-06) in which the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 54/143 Taxman 196 has been followed cannot be applied since the said decision has been distinguished by the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sarvodaya Sahakari Bank Ltd (supra) where the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) should be allowed to the extent the provision for bad and doubtful debts availab…

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80GSection 80L

…mary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80P ;' The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 54/143 Taxman 196 has held as under: 5 ITA 923/Mum/2023 Union Bank of India "A bare perusal of section 36(1)(viia) as applicable to assessment year 1985-86 shows that the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) is in respect of the provision made. Therefore, making of a provision for bad and doubtful debt equal to the amount mentioned in the s…

DCIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Badaun Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Badaun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5272/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…rendered on the issue in appeal but on some other issue. Only a passing reference has been made on the issue before us whereas the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the case of State Bank of Patiala 272 ITR 54 is directly on the facts under consideration. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “Analysis of Section 36(1)(viia) Section 36(1)(vii) provides for a deduction in the computation of taxable profits for the debt established to be a bad debt. Section 36(1)(viia) provides for a deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doub…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. The Bharuch Dis Cent Co-Op Bank Ltd., Bharuch

ITA 298/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 296 to 298/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Physical hearing) D.C.I.T.,Circle- (1)(1), The Bharuch Dis Cent Co-op Bank Ltd., Baroda. Jawahar Bhavan, Station Road, Vs. Bharuch-392001. PAN No. AAABT 0073 E Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR with Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Assessee represented by Shri Manish J Shah, AR Date of hearing 05/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 09/01/2023 Order under…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. The Bharuch Dis Cent Co-Op Bank Ltd., Bharuch

ITA 297/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 296 to 298/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Physical hearing) D.C.I.T.,Circle- (1)(1), The Bharuch Dis Cent Co-op Bank Ltd., Baroda. Jawahar Bhavan, Station Road, Vs. Bharuch-392001. PAN No. AAABT 0073 E Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR with Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Assessee represented by Shri Manish J Shah, AR Date of hearing 05/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 09/01/2023 Order under…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. The Bharuch Dis Cent Co-Op Bank Ltd., Bharuch

ITA 296/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 296 to 298/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Physical hearing) D.C.I.T.,Circle- (1)(1), The Bharuch Dis Cent Co-op Bank Ltd., Baroda. Jawahar Bhavan, Station Road, Vs. Bharuch-392001. PAN No. AAABT 0073 E Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR with Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Assessee represented by Shri Manish J Shah, AR Date of hearing 05/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 09/01/2023 Order under…