← 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)

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1996/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-1(1)(1) Vs. M/S Chemical & Ferro 579, Aaykar Bhavan, Alloys Private Limited M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, Liberty Mumbai – 400020 Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacc4508N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143Section 143(2)

P a g e | 1 ACIT-1(1)(1) vs. M/s Chemical and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME

Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager (F & A), Rajkot vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income- 1St Floor, Lic Jeevan Tax-1, Rajkot. Prakash Building, Wing-2, Tagore Road Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aahas 2116 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Smt.Asha Vyas, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Jaya Chaudhary Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit]By Invoking Provision Of Section 263Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 31.3.2021Pertainingto The Asst.Year2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Smt.Asha Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Jaya Chaudhary CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

ld.Pr.CIT reveals that error which he found in the assessment order pertained to excess claim of provision for bad &doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act allowed to the assessee by the AO. Perusal of the para-2 of the ld.Pr.CIT order brings out the facts culled ... ld.Pr.CIT leading to this finding of error, but in this para-2 itself ld.Pr.CIT states that while total eligible amount of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act was Rs.8726 lakhs, the assessee had claimed only Rs.1307 lakhs. Noting this fact, he further goes on to assume jurisdiction

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. Additional CIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 521/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order ... Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. Additional CIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 520/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order ... Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 519/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order ... Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 518/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order ... Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 517/JODH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order ... Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order

ACIT, Circle, Pali vs. M/S. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 504/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order ... Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs.56,70,000/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order

The Malkapur Urban Co-Opt .Bank Ltd, Akola vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Alola Circle, Akola

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

ITA 334/NAG/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.334/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Malkapur Urban Co-Op. Vs. Acit, Akola Circle, Bank Ltd., Akola. K.N.D. & Associates, 502- 503, Satyam Apartment, Wardha Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aaalt0274E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subramanyam Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Formed For The Purpose Of Banking Business. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Was Filed On 22.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,00,56,920/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subramanyam
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Ltu(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4596/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalidbi Bank Ltd. 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005. Pan: Aabci8842G ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Ltu (2) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 40

Further as per section 36(2) (v) where any such debt or part thereof relates to advances made by bank to which section 36(1) (viia) applies, the deduction in respect of bad debts written off will not be allowed unless the amount of such debt or part thereof ... written off accordingly have not satisfied the provisions of section 36(2) (v) According to them since in assessee’s case provisions of section 36(1) (viia) are applicable, and assessee had not satisfied the provisions of 36(2) (v) bad debts written off cannot be allowed as deduction

Dy CIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

M/S the Maharashtra State Co. Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

redemption premium, was not verifiable. 7. It was further noted that a deduction of Rs 9.19 crore was claimed for rural advances under. Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act but no details of advances made by the rural branches were furnished in the financial statement. In absence of such

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

during the FY 2016-17 was Rs 22.37 crore which includes Rs 5.48 crore for provisions against standard assets. Since the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) are applicable for bad and doubtful debts only, provisions made against standard assets are to be excluded while computing deduction allowable u/s 36 ... head business and profession during the relevant assessment year. Having done so, the Appellant duly claimed a deduction of Rs. 39.58 crores under Section 36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act being provision for bad and doubtful debts created for the year AY 2017-18. Thereafter, during the assessment proceedings

DDIT (It)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 11 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 884/MUM/2003[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 1993-94
For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 15Section 37(2)Section 46Section 58B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy

Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahkari Bank Limited, Amreli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Rajkot

In the result ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 55/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)

lakhs on the ground that it pertains to provision for standard assets and not for bad and doubtful debts and since deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act can be allowed only in respect of provisions which are made for bad and doubtful debts, same is liable ... amount to bad debt account but has credited the same to provision against standard assets, deduction is not allowable to the assessee under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act by relying on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Bharuch district Central Cooperative Bank

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

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

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

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

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

Officer ) and secondly, ITAT order in ITA No. 1827/Mum/2017 dated 3/10/2018. 4. The ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in relation to claim for provision for bad and doubtful debt in the books of accounts of the assessee ... eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to the extent of provision made during the year for bad and doubtful debt amounting

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

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

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

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

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

Officer ) and secondly, ITAT order in ITA No. 1827/Mum/2017 dated 3/10/2018. 4. The ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in relation to claim for provision for bad and doubtful debt in the books of accounts of the assessee ... eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to the extent of provision made during the year for bad and doubtful debt amounting

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd (in Respect of M.S, Icici Ltd Merged With M.S, Icici Bank Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8435/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

observing as under: “ 60. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. A reading of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act would indicate that the assessee at its own option can be allowed deduction in respect of any provisions made by it for any assets ... classified by RBI as doubtful asset or loss assets in terms of the first proviso to section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. It is to be noted that the assessee is a Scheduled Bank and its accounts are maintained in conformity with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8420/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

observing as under: “ 60. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. A reading of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act would indicate that the assessee at its own option can be allowed deduction in respect of any provisions made by it for any assets ... classified by RBI as doubtful asset or loss assets in terms of the first proviso to section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. It is to be noted that the assessee is a Scheduled Bank and its accounts are maintained in conformity with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP