← 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)

Abhyudaya Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1595/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleabhyudaya Co-Op Bank Limited V. Pr.Cit -1 Ground Floor, K.K. Tower 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 Abhudaya Bank Lane Aayakar Bhavan Off. G.D. Ambedkar Marg M.K. Road Parel Village, Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaaa0300L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Keshav Bhujle Department By : Smt. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Keshav BhujleFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai
Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

1)(vii) is available in respect of bad debts written off subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified under section 36(2). Section 36(1)(viia) provides for the treatment of provisions for bad and doubtful debts of an amount not exceeding 7.5% of the total income (computed before ... exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of such banks. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(1)(viia) are distinct and independent. The provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) are applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2007-08 to cooperative bank also. Therefore

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

prays that the disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing ... verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning of Section 36 (1) (viia) when all the relevant details were submitted before him as additional evidences during the appellate proceedings and on which the AO had given his remand report 2. the appellant prays that the claim of deduction

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

prays that the disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing ... verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning of Section 36 (1) (viia) when all the relevant details were submitted before him as additional evidences during the appellate proceedings and on which the AO had given his remand report 2. the appellant prays that the claim of deduction

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

prays that the disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing ... verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning of Section 36 (1) (viia) when all the relevant details were submitted before him as additional evidences during the appellate proceedings and on which the AO had given his remand report 2. the appellant prays that the claim of deduction

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

prays that the disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing ... verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning of Section 36 (1) (viia) when all the relevant details were submitted before him as additional evidences during the appellate proceedings and on which the AO had given his remand report 2. the appellant prays that the claim of deduction

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

prays that the disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing ... verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning of Section 36 (1) (viia) when all the relevant details were submitted before him as additional evidences during the appellate proceedings and on which the AO had given his remand report 2. the appellant prays that the claim of deduction

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

prays that the disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted GROUND NO X : setting aside to the AO the ground of Section 36 (1) (viia) of the act 1. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (A) erred in directing ... verify whether the appellant had rural branches within the meaning of Section 36 (1) (viia) when all the relevant details were submitted before him as additional evidences during the appellate proceedings and on which the AO had given his remand report 2. the appellant prays that the claim of deduction

ACIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (No Merged With Hdfc Bank Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6186/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

from para-19 (page no. 159) wherein he notes “…… a sum of Rs.3,11,02,103/- was claimed under the proviso to Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in relation to the provisions created of Rs.1434 Lakhs………. 7 A.Y. 2002-03 M/s. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. …………….(d) “The deduction ... amount of bad debts written off as exceeds the credit balance available in the provision for bad and doubtful debt account created under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. And further CBDT clarified that the credit balance for this purpose will be the 10 A.Y. 2002-03 M/s. Lord

The Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1907/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranthe Karnataka Bank Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 2(1) Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Mangalore Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle – 2(1) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27-03-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Mangaluru & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Banking Company Carrying On Banking Business. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish
Section 14A

record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the issue before us; i.e. in respect of the computation of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act; has been considered and decided by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case (supra). Further ... material on record; including the judicial pronouncement cited. We find that the issue before us; in respect of computation of the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act; has been considered and decided by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank (supra

M/S Siddaganga Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tumkur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tumkur

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143Section 37

doubtful debts made on account of average aggregate advances made by rural branches of such bank. The Ld.AR submitted that section 36 (1) (viia) of the act provides that the deduction shall not exceed 7.5% of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and chapter ... deduction at 10% of the rural advances and claim the same in the return of income. The Ld.AR referred to the section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act that reads as under: “Whether the learned AO is justified in arriving at a conclusion that the provisions on rural advance will

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2962/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

reserves (NPA). In doing so the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the view of AO regarding application of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) & restricting the claim to Rs.l,80,79,235/- being 7.5% of Rs.72,03,63.815/-. 3. The appellant craves leave of your Honour ... documentary evidences. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the deduction to the extent of Rs.1,80,79,235 in accordance with provisions of Section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. The assessee claimed that the provision of Sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act allows the deduction on account

Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

reserves (NPA). In doing so the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the view of AO regarding application of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) & restricting the claim to Rs.l,80,79,235/- being 7.5% of Rs.72,03,63.815/-. 3. The appellant craves leave of your Honour ... documentary evidences. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the deduction to the extent of Rs.1,80,79,235 in accordance with provisions of Section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. The assessee claimed that the provision of Sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act allows the deduction on account

The Greater Bombay Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 600/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Greater Bombay Vs. Pr.Cit -1 Co- Op Bank Ltd, Room No. 330, 3Rd 89 Gbcb House, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Bhuleshwar, Mumbai – M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400002 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabat4479N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok Sharma.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajit K.Shrivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit) Mumbai-1 Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Sharma.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K.Shrivastava.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4857/MUM/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaldy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Income-Tax, 3(2) Bank Ltd. 36-38A, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack4409J Respondent .. Appellant M/S Kotak Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. 36-38A, Income-Tax-3(2) 227 Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack4409J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 3

Mahindra Bank Ltd. Rs.24,14,97,278/- u/s 36(2)(v) on the ground that the bad debt related to advances to which Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act applicable and the bad debt have to be necessarily debited to the provisions for bad and doubtful debt. The assessee ... explained that since the bad debt of Rs.24,14,97,278/- was more than the amount of provision allowed as per Section 36(1)(viia) which was Rs.14,35,29,262/-, therefore, the difference of Rs.9,79,68,016/- has been claimed as bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s

Abhyudaya Coop Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 623/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleabhyudaya Co-Op Bank Limited V. Pr.Cit -1 Ground Floor, K.K. Tower 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 Abhudaya Bank Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. G.D. Ambedkar Marg Mumbai - 400020 Parel Village, Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaaaa0300L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Keshav Bhujale Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Keshav BhujaleFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

assessee’s submissions are summarized and briefly reproduced in the order which is reproduced below: - a) Before Applicability of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of Income-tax Act to Co-Op Banks that is prior to 01/04/2006 bank had created provision for bad and doubtful debt reserve account ... written off against the BDDR provisions made before 01.04.2006 (as these advances were classified as NPA before 31.03.2006) i.e. before applicability of the section 36(1)(viia) to Co-op. Banks. d) The assessment in the said case was completed under Sec.143(3) on 31.01.2014 when no addition was made

The United Western Bank Ltd. (Through Successors Idbi Bank Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 289/PUN/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Rs.15,88,11,799/- from total amount of Bad Debts written off. He failed to appreciate the true scope and meaning of Section 36(1)(viia). The view taken by the Department that the entire current year's provision was disallowable is wholly contrary to the object and wording ... Section 36(1)(viia). He ought to have allowed deduction for Bad Debts U/s 36(1)(vii) from the total income computed before making deduction under clause (viia) and before deduction under chapter VIA and therefore, Bad Debts written off and allowable under clause (vii) must be deducted prior

The United Western Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1339/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Rs.15,88,11,799/- from total amount of Bad Debts written off. He failed to appreciate the true scope and meaning of Section 36(1)(viia). The view taken by the Department that the entire current year's provision was disallowable is wholly contrary to the object and wording ... Section 36(1)(viia). He ought to have allowed deduction for Bad Debts U/s 36(1)(vii) from the total income computed before making deduction under clause (viia) and before deduction under chapter VIA and therefore, Bad Debts written off and allowable under clause (vii) must be deducted prior

The United Western Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1738/PUN/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Rs.15,88,11,799/- from total amount of Bad Debts written off. He failed to appreciate the true scope and meaning of Section 36(1)(viia). The view taken by the Department that the entire current year's provision was disallowable is wholly contrary to the object and wording ... Section 36(1)(viia). He ought to have allowed deduction for Bad Debts U/s 36(1)(vii) from the total income computed before making deduction under clause (viia) and before deduction under chapter VIA and therefore, Bad Debts written off and allowable under clause (vii) must be deducted prior

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

ITA 4951/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

revised return of income. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee on the basis that deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is available towards rural and non-rural advances and in view of the proviso to section 36(1 ... limited to excess of the amount written off over the credit balance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance following the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007- 08, wherein

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 3685/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

revised return of income. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee on the basis that deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is available towards rural and non-rural advances and in view of the proviso to section 36(1 ... limited to excess of the amount written off over the credit balance of provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance following the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007- 08, wherein