← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(viia)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)445 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(viia) is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (347 ITR 272), cited in 516 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viia)

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
347 ITR 272 · 2012 · High Court
516
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts before making any disallowance.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 1 · 1959 · Supreme Court
341
citing judgments

When following the mercantile system of accounting, provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as deductions, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 270 · 2012 · Supreme Court
326
citing judgments

For a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), the debt must be actually written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, distinct from merely making a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee bears the onus to satisfy the conditions under both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act.

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT
436 ITR 582 · 2021 · Supreme Court
308
citing judgments

Amendments to tax law that impose new obligations or change existing legal positions apply prospectively, even if stated to be "for the removal of doubts." The judgment also clarifies that deductions under Section 43B are allowed only on actual payment, overriding the mercantile system of accounting.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(viia)

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that the reopening was resorted to for the reason that the assessee’s claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act was found to have not been computed correctly. He pointed out that the reasons revealed that the AO had become aware ... that the AO found from the assessment records that while the assessee was claiming deduction on account of bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and had also claimed deduction on account of special reserve created under section 36(1)(viii

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that the reopening was resorted to for the reason that the assessee’s claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act was found to have not been computed correctly. He pointed out that the reasons revealed that the AO had become aware ... that the AO found from the assessment records that while the assessee was claiming deduction on account of bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and had also claimed deduction on account of special reserve created under section 36(1)(viii

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that the reopening was resorted to for the reason that the assessee’s claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act was found to have not been computed correctly. He pointed out that the reasons revealed that the AO had become aware ... that the AO found from the assessment records that while the assessee was claiming deduction on account of bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and had also claimed deduction on account of special reserve created under section 36(1)(viii

A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Warangal vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 416/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

thereby making the total income at Rs. 125,79,27,870/- by confirming the issue of disallowance of claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to Rs. 3,27,34,353/-. Thereafter, the department went in a second appeal before the ITAT and the Co-ordinate ... have not been added back while computing the total income. Learned Assessing Officer allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of Rs. 9,93,40,015/- @ 7.50% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, but held that

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4278/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBΑΙ BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 875/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09 Karnataka Bank Ltd. Near Mahaveer Circle Pumpwell Kankanady Vs. Mangaluru Dcit Karnataka 575 002 Mangalore Pan No.Aabct5589K Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Dated 27.9.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Is Bad Is Law & Against The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Remanding The Issue Back To The Ao For Verification. 2.1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Having Observed In His Order That All The Details Required To Comply With The Directions Of Itat Has Been Furnished By The Assessee Bank, Ought Not Have Remanded Back The Issue Again To Ao For Verification, Instead Of Allowing The Appeal In Favor Of The Assessee Bank. 2.2 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Erred In Not Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Learned Assessing Officer.: Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru Page 2 Of 6 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Is Beyond The Directions Given By The Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Sri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

ITA No.875/Bang/2023 Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

debts allowed of Rs.312,69,37,766. (c) Provision for Depreciation of investments of Rs.46,19,11,355. (d) Deduction allowed under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs. 159,22,24,604. (e) Excess grant of deduction under section 36(1) (viia) Rs.12,23,01,710. (f) Deduction under section ... sale of investments which is taxed under the head capital gains as per the provision of the Act. 5. Deduction allowed under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs.159,22,24,604 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. CIT erred in holding that

M/S.Hdb Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

36(2)of the Act which are clearly applicable to the assessee company as the assessee company is covered by the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. (4) The allowability of bad debts amounting to Rs.224,81,43,124/- claimed by the assessee company

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 for debit and credit reward points Disallowance of revised claim Ground No.5 Ground No.5 for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 ... provision for reward points on credit and debit cards. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 for debit and credit reward points Disallowance of revised claim Ground No.5 Ground No.5 for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 ... provision for reward points on credit and debit cards. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 for debit and credit reward points Disallowance of revised claim Ground No.5 Ground No.5 for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 ... provision for reward points on credit and debit cards. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 for debit and credit reward points Disallowance of revised claim Ground No.5 Ground No.5 for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 ... provision for reward points on credit and debit cards. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 for debit and credit reward points Disallowance of revised claim Ground No.5 Ground No.5 for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 ... provision for reward points on credit and debit cards. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 for debit and credit reward points Disallowance of revised claim Ground No.5 Ground No.5 for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 ... provision for reward points on credit and debit cards. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Disallowance of revised claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.5 42. The assessee vide letter dated 24.12.2018 stated that at the time of filing the return of income the census data

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 933/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

would be added back to that extent in the computation of total income under the Income-tax Act.” It then proceeds to discuss section 36(1)(viia), which also bears reference to section 36(1)(vii), which, deemed relevant, is accordingly reproduced as under: “43. Even section 36(1 ... been amended to provide that in the case of a bank to which section 36(1)(viia) applies, the amount of bad and doubtful debt shall be debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debt account and that the deduction shall be limited to the amount by which such

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the both appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 5612/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the both appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 5611/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, Dainik Navjyoti Building, Rawatbhata Road vs. Kota Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd, Rawatbhata Road, Kota

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

doubtful interest Rs. 2,28,62,000/-). The Primary Co-operative Agricultural and rural Development Banks are eligible for deduction either in Section 36(1)(viia) or in Section 80P in both cases demand will be nil. Moreover the AO assessed income considering the original return of income whereas

M/S.Pathanmthitta Dist. Co-Op Bank Ltd, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable and, in any case, without merit

ITA 431/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daspathanamthitta District Dy. Cit, Circle- 1 Co-Op Bank Ltd. Thiruvalla Near Ksrtc Bus Stand Vs. Mylapara Road Pathanamthitta 689645 [Pan:Aabfp9182H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aswin Gopakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial