← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)3,872 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)

M/S. Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to the section 43B which takes effect from 15th April 2021 and is applicable to the AY 2021-22 onwards ... under, in Para 3 and 4: "The assessee by way of instant appeal challenged the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ ESIC under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B amounting to Rs. 1.19 crores. The assessee argued that the timely payment of employees' contribution, as per the judgment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismsised

ITA 1140/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-16 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Circle – 1(1)(1), 4 Lake Side Residency, No.4, Bengaluru. Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Bengaluru – 560 042. Pan : Aadca 0485 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

brought forward loss 6,68,11,530 and unabsorbed depreciation under section 115JB of the Act Page 3 of 5 Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of 2 65,028 the Act Disallowance under section 43B of the 3 1,74,947 Act TOTAL 6,70,51,505 4. Aggrieved

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to the section 43B which takes effect from 1st April 2021 and is applicable to the AY 2021-22 onwards ... under, in Para 3 and 4: "The assessee by way of instant appeal challenged the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ ESIC under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B amounting to Rs. 1.19 crores. The assessee argued that the timely payment of employees' contribution, as per the judgment

M/S. Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1041/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Commissioner(Appeals) erred in upholding the same. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by applying section 36(1)(va) instead of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by not considering ... addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to the section 43B which takes effect from 1St April 2021 and is applicable to the AY 2021-22 onwards

Devraj Computers Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, It(OSD), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3274/CHNY/2018[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Devraj Computers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 42, Gee Gee Complex, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Range – 1, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcd1593P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 27.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Both The Assessment Years: Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Range-1, Chennai 34 Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1 Made Arbitrary Additions Without The Right Application Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

balance has been given as interest free loans to parties and thus computed proportionate interest and disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), based on the cash flow statement from 2009-2015, has computed utilization of interest bearing funds for the purpose of giving ... interest bearing fund of ₹.1,63,99,101/- worked out by the ld. CIT(A) for the purpose of charging interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, we modify the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to reduce

Devraj Computers Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, It(OSD), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3273/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Devraj Computers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 42, Gee Gee Complex, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Range – 1, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcd1593P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 27.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Both The Assessment Years: Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Range-1, Chennai 34 Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1 Made Arbitrary Additions Without The Right Application Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

balance has been given as interest free loans to parties and thus computed proportionate interest and disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), based on the cash flow statement from 2009-2015, has computed utilization of interest bearing funds for the purpose of giving ... interest bearing fund of ₹.1,63,99,101/- worked out by the ld. CIT(A) for the purpose of charging interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, we modify the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to reduce

Indica Industries P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2565/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshindica Industries Pvt. Ltd, Vs. National Faceless A-4, Greater Kailash, Appeal Centre, South Delhi, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaaci0233Q

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

said order is reproduced below:- “53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms ... later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there

Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Cir-18(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 1653/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(2)

1653/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15) Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani Commodities and claimed against share of profit and remuneration from the said firm under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, at the time of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that this ground is not pressed. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2739/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

erred deleting the disallowance of Rs. 15,18,128/- on account of Interest paid on unsecured loan as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act?” 3. In ITA No. 2488/Del/2023, following tangible grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1

Subramaniam Ashok Kumar, Tamil Nadu vs. ACIT, Centyral Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2488/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Harshit Srivastava, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

erred deleting the disallowance of Rs. 15,18,128/- on account of Interest paid on unsecured loan as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act?” 3. In ITA No. 2488/Del/2023, following tangible grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1

ACIT Corporate Circle -1 (1), Kochi vs. M/S Geofin Comtrade Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 968/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

Revenue claiming satisfaction of the conditions for a write off (of a bad debt as irrecoverable) in accounts, i.e., as mandated by section 36(1)(vii) of ITA No. 967 & 968/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. CIT v. Geofin Comtrade Ltd. the Act, and the law laid down ... profits arrived at on commercial principles subject to the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, if by the Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) a provision for doubtful debt is kept out of the ambit of the bad debt which is written off then, one has to take into

ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Geofin Comtrade Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 967/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

Revenue claiming satisfaction of the conditions for a write off (of a bad debt as irrecoverable) in accounts, i.e., as mandated by section 36(1)(vii) of ITA No. 967 & 968/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Asst. CIT v. Geofin Comtrade Ltd. the Act, and the law laid down ... profits arrived at on commercial principles subject to the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, if by the Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) a provision for doubtful debt is kept out of the ambit of the bad debt which is written off then, one has to take into

Ayur Green Ayurveda Hospitals Private Limited, Malappuram vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

liability of the employer and, hence, the employer's and employee's contribution cannot be treated differently insofar as the deductions permissible under Section 36 (1) (va) 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has ignored the basic fact that penalty proceedings are separate and independent proceedings, thus, reliance placed ... payments on time. This was not any lapse from part of the assessee warranting to the addition by invoicing the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 2(24(x). 6. This issue was raised in a prominent newspapers at that time. The said newspaper cuttings has been attached

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vila)

following details:- "() Whether the assessee bank has debited the amounts so recovered out of bad debts against Reserve created by virtue of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act? (ii) | Whether the amounts recovered against the bad debts have not exceeded the reserve so created? (ii) | Whether the amounts recovered ... against the bad debts have not been charged to profit & loss account of assessee bank as per Provisions of section 36(1)(vii). The AO is directed to ascertain the Page No. 2 ITA NO.1439/MUM/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) M/s. Union Bank of India facts from the books of accounts

Manohar Prasad Akkineni, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 1216/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36

carried on by the assessee. On the other hand, the AO had also not examined the issue in light of provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act, because the AO has made adhoc disallowance of 50% debt. Hence, we are of the considered view that ... issue needs to go back to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh in accordance with provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s 36(2) of the Act. We further direct the AO while deciding the issue, he must take into account the ratio laid down

M/S. Bankura District Central Co.Opetative Bank Ltd., Bankura vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Bankura.

In the result, ITA No. 1479/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1479/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250

confirmed the addition due to lack of evidence. The assessee placed that the expenses has proximity with Section 36(1)(vii) and the fact of the ld. AO is distorted fact. We consider both the arguments, and the issue was not adjudicated due to lack of evidence. In our considered

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 672/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

failed to appreciate the fact that the profit from eligible business worked out by AO is not in conformity with the provisions of section 36(1)(viii). 10. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming a sum of Rs.100,11,07,158/- claimed by the appellant bank u/s 36(1 ... from profits :-30-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 and gains of business or profession, the assessee has followed provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) and provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. According to the assessee, when it comes to provision

DCIT Circle-2(1), Trichy vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

failed to appreciate the fact that the profit from eligible business worked out by AO is not in conformity with the provisions of section 36(1)(viii). 10. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming a sum of Rs.100,11,07,158/- claimed by the appellant bank u/s 36(1 ... from profits :-30-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 and gains of business or profession, the assessee has followed provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) and provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. According to the assessee, when it comes to provision

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

failed to appreciate the fact that the profit from eligible business worked out by AO is not in conformity with the provisions of section 36(1)(viii). 10. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming a sum of Rs.100,11,07,158/- claimed by the appellant bank u/s 36(1 ... from profits :-30-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 and gains of business or profession, the assessee has followed provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) and provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. According to the assessee, when it comes to provision

ACIT Circle 1, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

failed to appreciate the fact that the profit from eligible business worked out by AO is not in conformity with the provisions of section 36(1)(viii). 10. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming a sum of Rs.100,11,07,158/- claimed by the appellant bank u/s 36(1 ... from profits :-30-: ITA. No: 1120, 1121, 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019, 636 & 672/Chny/2020 and gains of business or profession, the assessee has followed provisions of section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) and provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. According to the assessee, when it comes to provision