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.

How many judgments cite State Bank of Patiala v. CIT?

62 judgments on BharatTax cite State Bank of Patiala v. CIT (272 ITR 54), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does State Bank of Patiala v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 14A, Section 36(1)(viia), Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act.

State Bank of Patiala v. CIT (272 ITR 54)

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4357/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai V/S Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava

Section 3Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai v/s Bank of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN – AAACB0472C Bank of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN – AAACB0472C v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai Revenue by : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh Date of…

M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Bank, Indore vs. The ACIT-3(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…1066 of 2008 dated 21.10.2014 has decided the above substantial question of law by observing as under: "The Punjab and Haryana High court had an occasion to consider this provision in the case of state bank Of Patiala vs commissioner of income tax and another 272 ITR 54 where it was held as under “ a bare perusal of the above shows that the deduction allowable under the above provision is in respect of the provision made . Therefore making of the provision for bad and doubt debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for claiming such deduction .... we are therefore satisfied that the tribunal wa…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Bank, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…1066 of 2008 dated 21.10.2014 has decided the above substantial question of law by observing as under: "The Punjab and Haryana High court had an occasion to consider this provision in the case of state bank Of Patiala vs commissioner of income tax and another 272 ITR 54 where it was held as under “ a bare perusal of the above shows that the deduction allowable under the above provision is in respect of the provision made . Therefore making of the provision for bad and doubt debt equal to the amount mentioned in this section is a must for claiming such deduction .... we are therefore satisfied that the tribunal wa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S M Visvesvaraya Co-Op Bank Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1436/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. M. Visvesvaraya Co-Op Income Tax, Bank Ltd., Circle – 5(2)(1), Shankar Mutt Road Branch, Bengaluru. No.109, Shankar Mutt Road, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaaas 3586 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. P. V Pradeep Kumar, Acit Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.03.2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. P. V Pradeep Kumar, ACIT

…(difference of amount paid as per P&L account of Rs.36,00,000-deduction claimed under provision for Bad and Doubtful debts of Rs.42,52,319/-). Hence, he disallowed Rs.6,52,319/- keeping in view of the decision in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs CIT(2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H) Aggrieved the assessee moved the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 11....After considering the facts of the case and the submissions made before him in the light of the Sec.36(1)(viiia) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the first appellate authority was of the view that the deduction allowable u/s. 36(1)(viiia) is in respect t…

The Andhra Bank Employees'S Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result the assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1132/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S The Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3), Employee’S Cooperative Hyderabad. Bank Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan- Aabct6347B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Devdas Smt Suman Malik Revenue By :

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…a Vikas Bank, Warangal Vs DCIT in ITA Nos. 715 and 1293 of Hyd 2015, wherein the Tribunal had held the issue against the assessee by following decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs CIT reported in (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P & H). It was further submitted that the assessee therein had made an alternate claim that where the opening balance of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act was in excess of claim of deduction, then it may be allowed to such an extent, even if a fresh provision is not made, and the Tribunal had remanded alternate cl…

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)

…mstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee on the issue of deduction u/s 36(I)(viia) without 2 Prathma Bank appreciating the ratio laid down by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiyala Vs. CIT(2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H) on the issue under consideration. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in holding that the deduction u/s 36(I)(viia) is allowable at 10% without appreciating the clear provisions of section 36(I)(viia) which explicitly restricted the deduction to the extent of provision made for bad and doubtful debts with an upper cap of 10% of aggregate average ru…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1168/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1168/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: 10.04.2017

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…ssee which indicates that the provisions should be made in the year under consideration. The Ld.DR further stated that both the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Pataiala v. :- 7 -: CIT 272 ITR 54 which is correct reliance and argued that since the disallowance was made correctly, no interference is called for in the lower authorities orders. On the other hand, in the rejoinder, the Ld.Counsel argued that the placing reliance by the Ld.CIT(A) as well as AO in Punjab and Haryana High Court decision is on different facts which is distingui…

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

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2924/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Prathma Bank, Range-1, Ramganga Vihar, Moradabad Moradabad Pan: Aaajp0988Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smti Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 36

…he aggregate rural advances of the bank though assessee has claimed INR 1 472000/– is provision for bad and doubtful debts in its profit and loss account. The learned assessing officer relying on the decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in 272 ITR 54 in state Bank of Patiala vs Commissioner of income tax was of the view that assessee has claimed the deduction incorrectly. Therefore he questioned the quantum of deduction and held that it would be restricted to the amount of reserve created in the books of account. Accordingly he computed the total income of the assessee at INR 1 76832400/– agai…

Prathama Bank, Moradabad vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2316/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Prathma Bank, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase-Ii, Moradabad-244001 Moradabad-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2013 Of Ld. Cit, Moradabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…revised claim was worked out on the basis of 10% of average agricultural advances of Rs.801.56 crores. The ld. CIT also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs CIT & Others reported at (2005) 272 ITR 54. The ld. CIT mentioned in the impugned order that the assessee claimed that the issue under consideration was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT reported at (2010) 320 ITR 567 wherein it was held as under: “Section 36(1)(vii) provides for a deduction in the computation of taxable…

DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata vs. Uco Bank, Kolkata

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

ITA 1281/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri D.S.Damle & Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…xcess of the provision charged to profit and loss account for the year. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs CIT reported in (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H) (supra) wherein it was held as under:- “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 claiming such deduction The Tribunal has rightly pointed…

Uco Bank, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle -6, Kolkata

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

ITA 1202/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri D.S.Damle & Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…xcess of the provision charged to profit and loss account for the year. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs CIT reported in (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H) (supra) wherein it was held as under:- “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 claiming such deduction The Tribunal has rightly pointed…

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

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

ITA 331/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, Mg Road, Bangalre-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaacv 4791 J & M/S. Vijaya Bank, Ho, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri P.Chandrashekar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca & Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Bank As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bangalore, Dated 28/11/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. Ita Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 2 Of 25 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Nationalized Bank Engaged In The Business Of Banking. It Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 29/9/2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.540,24,85,305/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Addl. Cit (Ltu), Bangalore, U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] Vide Order Dated 30/08/2011 At A Total Income Of Rs.1205,99,81,409/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances:

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan, CA and Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandrashekar, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…g that the assessee-bank was eligible for deduction under the provisions of sec.36(1)(viia) only to the extent provision is created. The CIT(A) had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT (272 ITR 54). In respect of disallowance of bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(vii), the CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the ground that the amounts were not actually written off in the books of account and also relied on the ITA Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 4 of 25 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. (320 ITR 577). So fa…

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

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

ITA 318/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, Mg Road, Bangalre-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaacv 4791 J & M/S. Vijaya Bank, Ho, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri P.Chandrashekar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca & Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Bank As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bangalore, Dated 28/11/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. Ita Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 2 Of 25 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Nationalized Bank Engaged In The Business Of Banking. It Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 29/9/2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.540,24,85,305/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Addl. Cit (Ltu), Bangalore, U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] Vide Order Dated 30/08/2011 At A Total Income Of Rs.1205,99,81,409/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances:

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan, CA and Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandrashekar, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…g that the assessee-bank was eligible for deduction under the provisions of sec.36(1)(viia) only to the extent provision is created. The CIT(A) had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs. CIT (272 ITR 54). In respect of disallowance of bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(vii), the CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the ground that the amounts were not actually written off in the books of account and also relied on the ITA Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 4 of 25 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. (320 ITR 577). So fa…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 911/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 212Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member ITA No.585 & 911/Kol/2013 Assessment Year :2009-10 UCO Bank V/s. DCIT, Circle-6, C/o UCO Bank, 10, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, B.T.M. Sarani, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [PAN No.AAACU 3561 B] DCIT, Circle-6, Room No. V/s. M/s UCO Bank 17, 6th Floor, Aayakar 10, BTM Sarani, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 अपीलाथ" /Appellant .. ""यथ"/Respondent Shri D.S.Damle, FCA आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee राज"व क" ओर से/By Responde…

Uco Bank, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 212Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member ITA No.585 & 911/Kol/2013 Assessment Year :2009-10 UCO Bank V/s. DCIT, Circle-6, C/o UCO Bank, 10, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, B.T.M. Sarani, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [PAN No.AAACU 3561 B] DCIT, Circle-6, Room No. V/s. M/s UCO Bank 17, 6th Floor, Aayakar 10, BTM Sarani, Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 अपीलाथ" /Appellant .. ""यथ"/Respondent Shri D.S.Damle, FCA आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee राज"व क" ओर से/By Responde…

Tamilnadu State Apex Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2177/CHNY/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…urther claim of ₹6,54,46,855/- was negative by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the provision has been debited in the books of accounts and hence the same IS to be allowed as deduction and reliance was placed on the case of SBP vs CIT (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H). The contention of the assessee is far from truth since, the assessee debited Rs.1,06,u3,566/- only in the Income and Expenditure ale under the head "’’provisions and reserves made’’. It is not known how the assessee placed reliance on the decision of P&H High Court in the case of SBP vs CIT and Another (2005) 272 ITR (54). The decision was…

DCIT, Circle - 6 Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Uco Bank, Kolkata

ITA No.1329/K/08

ITA 197/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri D.S Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjana, CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…t for the year. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the ITA No. 415/KOl/2010 ITA No. 197/KOl/2011 UCO Bank-AM Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs CIT reported in (2005) 272 ITR 54 (P&H) (supra) wherein it was held as under:- “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 claiming such deduction The Tribunal has rightly pointed…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 6, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 2175/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 14A

…also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that a similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in the case of State Bank of Patiala-vs.- CIT reported in 272 ITR 54, wherein it was held that the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) is in respect of the provision made and, therefore, making of provision equal to the amount claimed as deduction in the account books is necessary for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(vii). Since there is no other decision of any High Court taking a different view on…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee appeals ITA Nos

ITA 496/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate and Shri.C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, Adl. CIT

Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.496 & 497/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-2011 & 2011-12 Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Balance Sheet Management Income Tax, Department, Large Tax Payer Unit, 763, Anna Salai, Anna Nagar Western Extension, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 101. [PAN AAACI 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ…

ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4842/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4678/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Union Bank Of India, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, Central Accounts Department, Vs. World Trade Center, 6Th Floor, Cuff Parade, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400005 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 10Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80L

…n case in ITA No.6920/Mum/2013 relating to AY 2005-06 in its order dated 31.7.2015 and the Tribunal has decided this issue against the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (272 ITR 54). 23. Since the decision rendered by the Tribunal in AY 2005-06 is a later decision and since the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, we are inclined to follow the same. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the AO. 24. In the result, the appeal filed…

State Bank of Patiala v. CIT