← 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)

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1397/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

treating it as perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act. 5. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the claim under section 36(1)(viia) is allowable on incremental advances only and not on outstanding advances. :-3-: ITA. No:1126/Chny/2024 5.1 Learned Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact

Nutan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1023/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)

returned by the assessee. While examining the assessment records, the Principal CIT noticed two major issues. First, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act on the entire income of ₹17,55,97,752/-, even though this income consisted of capital gains of ₹6,36 ... which does not fall under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession.” The Principal CIT observed that section 36(1)(viia) is a deduction allowable only while computing income under section 28 of the Act, meaning the deduction can be claimed only against business income and not against

Kolhapur Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited, Kolhapur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2778/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 1550/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

during the 2451,44,58,129/- year Less; Credit balance as on April 1, 2008 430,80,00,960/- Viz. Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) claimed as per original return for A.Y. 2007-08 filed on September 30, 2008) 2020,64,57,169/- Bad debts claimed under section 36

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 4418/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

during the 2451,44,58,129/- year Less; Credit balance as on April 1, 2008 430,80,00,960/- Viz. Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) claimed as per original return for A.Y. 2007-08 filed on September 30, 2008) 2020,64,57,169/- Bad debts claimed under section 36

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur

ITA 1889/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

viia). 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that some of the branches are not rural branches as per the definition of Section 36(1)(viia). 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that term “rural branch” is to be determined based only on the population ... gone through orders of the authorities below. The fact with regard to eligibility of assessee for claiming the benefit of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is not in dispute. In fact, the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A) have accepted the fact that the assessee

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Trichy

ITA 1502/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

viia). 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that some of the branches are not rural branches as per the definition of Section 36(1)(viia). 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that term “rural branch” is to be determined based only on the population ... gone through orders of the authorities below. The fact with regard to eligibility of assessee for claiming the benefit of provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is not in dispute. In fact, the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A) have accepted the fact that the assessee

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3039/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

rural branches of the appellant bank without adjusting the same against the credit balance in the provision account made under Section 36(1)(viia). 2. The learned Assessing Officer be directed to not to apply the provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the provisions ... debts written off by non-rural branches may not be adjusted against the credit balance in the provision account made under Section 36(1)(viia). 7. With respect to the ground relating to the applicability of provisions of section 115JB, the ld AR stated that the provisions of the section

Punjab National Bank, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2712/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

rural branches of the appellant bank without adjusting the same against the credit balance in the provision account made under Section 36(1)(viia). 2. The learned Assessing Officer be directed to not to apply the provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the provisions ... debts written off by non-rural branches may not be adjusted against the credit balance in the provision account made under Section 36(1)(viia). 7. With respect to the ground relating to the applicability of provisions of section 115JB, the ld AR stated that the provisions of the section

Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

purposes of computing the taxable income of the assessee in the earlier years as and when created, as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The details of the said claim have been brought out by the Ld.PCIT in his show cause notice reproduced above. Page ... Rajkot Dist. Co-op. Bank Ltd. 15. The provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act are very clear, allowing claim of deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts, to the extent the provisions aremade. This is the exact word (made) used in the section alongwith

Gs Mahanagar Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle -1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1867/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: BEFOREHON'BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kukreja Adv. &For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

confirming the action of the Ld. AO in denying deduction of Rs. 2 GS Mahanagar Co-operative Bank Limited 39,24,481 under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act') towards the provision for bad and doubtful debts. 2. On the facts and circumstances ... doubtful debts to the profit and loss account for the year under consideration for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to, add to or alter, by deletion, substitution, or otherwise, any or all of the foregoing grounds

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

fund 7 Disallowance of capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue ... brought to tax under section 41(1) by stating that the impugned amount had been claimed as deduction in earlier years under section 36(1)(viia). Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the issues is covered by the decision

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

fund 7 Disallowance of capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue ... brought to tax under section 41(1) by stating that the impugned amount had been claimed as deduction in earlier years under section 36(1)(viia). Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the issues is covered by the decision

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank (Earlier Known As Oriental Bank of Commerce), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3161/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Punjab National Bank (Earlier Circle-19(1), Know As Oriental Bank Of Delhi Commerce), Harsha Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place, Delhi Pan: Aaaco0191M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishana, Ca Department By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(2)(v)

charges as revenue expenditure items in very terms. 12. Next comes the sixth substantive issue between the parties regarding allowability of assessee’s section 36(1)(viia) deduction claim of Rs.1258,11,97,648/- made by the Assessing Officer and deleted in the lower appellate discussion, as under ... rural branches;  Also, the assessee has not submitted the credit available in the provisions for bad and doubtful debts account. 11.3 Section 36(1)(viia) is quoted below for reference: Other deductions. 36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters

Aryavart Bank, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 800/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Vs. Dcit-Range 1, (Successor To Erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Nbcc Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aaaju0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. C. Naresh, Fca Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer That Were Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 30.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Granting Opportunity To The Appellant Bank To Present The Case Through Video Conferencing As Specified Under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 Provided U/S. 250(68) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Be Directed To Grant Personal Hearing Through Video Conferencing In The Interest Of Justice. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) & Setting Aside The Order To Ao Without Appreciating That The Order Was Not Passed U/S 144. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Din Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Entity & Hence The Order Passed Is Invalid. Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Sh. C. Naresh, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 250(68)Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

provision made for assets with overdue of less than 90 days as provision made for bad and doubtful debts in terms of section 36(1)(viia). 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not deciding on disallowance

Allahabad Bank U. P. Gramin Bank, Banda vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. Naresh, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

r.w.s.36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs.81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1 ... /M/2023 & 2971-2970/M/2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India balance in the provision for bad & doubtful debits under section 36(1)(viia). The AO noticed that the assessee in the AY 2015-16 has claimed a deduction of Rs. 84,46,95,341/- under section 36(1)(viia

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1 ... Small Industries Development Bank of India balance in the provision for bad & doubtful debits under section 36(1)(viia). The AO noticed that the assessee in the AY 2015-16 has claimed a deduction of Rs. 84,46,95,341/- under section 36(1)(viia)(c) and therefore held that