Syndicate Bank v. DCIT

78 ITD 103Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2001#3523 most cited

What is Syndicate Bank v. DCIT authority for?

A scheduled bank with rural branches is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) for provision made for bad and doubtful debts, even if the provision does not specifically relate to rural advances.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Syndicate Bank v. DCIT · 78 ITD 103 · section 36(1)(viia) · deduction · provision for bad and doubtful debts · rural advances · scheduled banks · ITAT Bangalore

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 25

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 92b(1)section 36(2)(v)section 92(1)legal expensessection 36(1)(v)retrospective amendmentsection 115jb(2)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(viii)corporate guaranteesection 139(5)section 36(2)

Judgments citing Syndicate Bank v. DCIT

M/S Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Dharwad vs. CIT, Hubli

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 636/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT – DRFor Respondent: 12-02-2020
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ets in accordance with the guidelines issued by it in this behalf, for an amount not exceeding five per cent of the amount of such assets shown in the books of account of the bank on the last day of the previous year." 9. In the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) 78 ITD 103 (Bang.), the Bangalore Bench of ITAT took the view that irrespective of the debit to the profit and loss account on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts (PBDD), an Assessee is entitled to 10 percent of the AARA as deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision was as follows: "2…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hubli vs. M/S. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

ITA 1391/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri Pranav Krishna, & Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ets in accordance with the guidelines issued by it in this behalf, for an amount not exceeding five per cent of the amount of such assets shown in the books of account of the bank on the last day of the previous year.” 9. In the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) 78 ITD 103 (Bang.), the Bangalore Bench of ITAT took the view that irrespective of the debit to the profit and loss account on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts (PBDD), an Assessee is entitled to 10 percent of the AARA as deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision was as follows: “2…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hubli vs. M/S. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

ITA 1392/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri Pranav Krishna, & Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ets in accordance with the guidelines issued by it in this behalf, for an amount not exceeding five per cent of the amount of such assets shown in the books of account of the bank on the last day of the previous year.” 9. In the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) 78 ITD 103 (Bang.), the Bangalore Bench of ITAT took the view that irrespective of the debit to the profit and loss account on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts (PBDD), an Assessee is entitled to 10 percent of the AARA as deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision was as follows: “2…

The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) RG-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3996/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Adit (It) 3(1) Vs. The Hongkong & Scindia House, Shanghai Banking R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd N.M.Road, 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Mumbai – 38 Road Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & The Hongkong & Vs. Adit (It) 3(1) Shanghai Banking Scindia House, R.No.132, 1St Floor Corporation Ltd 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi N.M.Road, Road Mumbai – 38 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 37Section 44C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & ADIT (IT) 3(1) Vs. The Hongkong and Scindia House, Shanghai Banking R.No.132, 1st Floor Corporation Ltd N.M.Road, 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Mumbai – 38 Road Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACT2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & The Hongkong and Vs. ADIT (IT) 3(1) Shanghai Banking Scindia House, R.No.132, 1st Floor Corporation Ltd 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi N.M.Road, Road Mumbai – 38 Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAACT2786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Anand Mohan Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka and Shri…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-2, Jamnagar vs. The Jamnagar District Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

…se the same is only the debatable issue for which the law required to be decided. 5. We would also like to rely on the following decisions of the Honorable Courts in which the interpretation adopted by us is accepted in the case of Syndicate Bank reported in 78 ITD 103 the Honourable Tribunal held that irrespective of the Debit to the profit and loss account on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts, an assessee is entitled to 10% of Average Advances as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act, The relevant Observation of the aforesaid decision was as fallows : "20. The Ld. CIT has also acted under the mis…

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

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5273/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.DR
Section 32(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…irrecoverable debts under section 36(1)(vii) in addition to the benefit of deduction of the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section36(1)(viia). The Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Syndicate Bank vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (2001) 78 ITD 103 (Bang) has held that - The true meaning of the clause, as indicated earlier, is that once a provision for bad and doubtful debts is made by a scheduled bank having rural branches, the assessee is entitled to a deduction which is quantified not with respect to the amount provided for in the accounts, but with respect to a certain' percentage of the…

ACIT, Hubli vs. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 673/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri A Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ts in accordance with the guidelines issued by it in this behalf, for an amount not exceeding five per cent of the amount of such assets shown in the books of account of the bank on the last day of the previous year.” 9. In the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) 78 ITD 103 (Bang.), the Bangalore Bench of ITAT took the view that irrespective of the debit to the profit and loss account on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts (PBDD), an Assessee is entitled to 10 percent of the AARA as deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision was as follows:…

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)

…his issue has been put forward by the auditors of the bank infront of Board of Directors. 5. The last & important point, which I want to convey is that the case law which has been quoted by your AR i.e. Syndicate Bank Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 78 ITD 103 (Banglore) was majorly on the issue of 263 done by the CIT in that case. As regards section 36(1) (viia), ITAT Banglore in the above case, has mentioned it in passing phrase. Hence this case Law cannot be credibly followed to dispose of this case in your favour. 6. The language of section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act, 1961 states 'in respect of any p…

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 306/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…has erred in confirming the disallowances amounting to Rs.285,70,89,045 under section 36(1)(viia) as referred to in Ground No.1 as above in disregard of the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Syndicate Bank (78 ITD 103) and solely relying on the CBDT’s Instruction No. 17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008. 3. That, on facts as well as on law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-VI, Kol has erred in confirming the application of provision of Rule 8D read with section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without bringing on record any cogent reasons for disregardi…

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)

…n dated 16/11/11 & submission dated 21/11/11 (page 29 PB) & submission dated 22/11/11 (page 30-32 PB). Vide submission dated 22/11/11 11 Prathama Bank before the AO a reliance was placed on the decision of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs DCIT 78 ITD 103 wherein it has been held that the true meaning of section 36(1)(viia) is that once a provision for bad and doubtful debts is made by a scheduled bank having rural branches the assessee is entitled to a deduction which is quantified not with respect to the amount provided for in the accounts but with respect to certain percentage of total income an…

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1199/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar Ghosh & Shri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…Kol has erred in confirming the disallowances amounting to Rs 276,01,94,417 under section 36(1 )(viia) as referred to in Ground No.1 as above in disregard of the decision of Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in the case of Syndicate Bank (78 ITD 103) and relying solely on the CBDT's Instruction No.17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008.” 3. The Assessee is a nationalised bank. In the return of income filed for AY 2008-09, the Assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 544,78,26,226 being deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1 )(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Sec.36(1)(vii…

The ADIT (I.T)3(1) vs. M/S. Honkong & Shanghani Banking Corpn. Ltd

In the result, ITA Nos.2519 and 2520/Mum/2004 by revenue stand dismissed, ITA No

ITA 2519/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2519 & 2520/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:1999-2000 & 2000-01) M/S Hongkong & Shanghani Asstt.Direrctor Of Income Tax बनाम/ Banking Corporation Ltd., (International Taxation)-3(1), Vs. 52/60, M G Road, 136, Scindia House, Mumbai-400001 N M Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ “एल” मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2519 and 2520/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:1999-2000 and 2000-01) M/s Hongkong and Shanghani Asstt.Direrctor of Income Tax बनाम/ Banking Corporation Ltd., (International Taxation)-3(1), Vs. 52/60, M G Road, 136, Scindia House, Mumbai-400001 N M Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2679 and 2680/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:1999-2000 and 2000-01) M/s H…

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)

…refore proposed to disallowed a sum of Rs. 192,57,72,764/- (Difference between Rs.200,03,24,219 and Rs.7,45,51,455). The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by following the decision of the decision of the ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank reported in 78 ITD 103 wherein it was held that irrespective of the debit to the profit and loss account on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts (PBDD), an Assessee is entitled to 10% of the AARA as deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision was as follows: “20. The learned CIT has also acted und…

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)

…refore proposed to disallowed a sum of Rs. 192,57,72,764/- (Difference between Rs.200,03,24,219 and Rs.7,45,51,455). The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by following the decision of the decision of the ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank reported in 78 ITD 103 wherein it was held that irrespective of the debit to the profit and loss account on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts (PBDD), an Assessee is entitled to 10% of the AARA as deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision was as follows: “20. The learned CIT has also acted und…