← 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)

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 193/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

their books of account and finally claimed deduction of Rs.1485,43,30,689/- in their computation of income as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. However, only due to the difference in nomenclature of the account i.e. “provision for NPA” instead of “provision for doubtful ... aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO for recalculation. 11. In rejoinder, the Ld. AR invited our attention to provision of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and submitted that, there is no requirement under the Act to consider the amount of security before making any provision

United Overseas Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3486/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: 09.04.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153Section 270ASection 37Section 44C

Average Adjusted total income (A) 23,443,997 Actual expenditure incurred (B) 1,003,222 Deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act [Lower 1,003,222 of (A) or (B)] 5. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench

Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd, Dombivali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6089/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Tejaswi S. Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Solapur Siddheshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd, Solapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2480/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

The Wardha District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Wardha vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 11/NAG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts pertaining to rural Branches of the Bank which are considered to be allowable under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The core issue that we need to adjudicate in this appeal is, whether or not the penalty imposed under section ... where the assessee is a District Central Co–operative Bank and the claim is pertaining to the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee had itself suo–moto claimed certain deduction

DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur vs. M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 29/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viiia)

census and RBI has confirmed the list of these branches. The Ld. Counsel submitted a chart of calculation of rural advances as per Section 36(1)(viia) and Rule 6ABA. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the scheme of KCC loan is valid for five years subject to annual review

Asst. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 2(1), Trichy Stationed at Thanjavur, Thanjavur vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, both the appeals raised by Revenue are

ITA 2877/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Shivanand K.Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Ananthan,CA &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Trichy Stationed at Thanjavur, Thanjavur vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, both the appeals raised by Revenue are

ITA 2876/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Shivanand K.Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Ananthan,CA &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Abhyudaya Coop Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 882/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(vii)

deduction in respect of bad debts. Bad debts written off in the books is allowable u/s. 36(1)(vii) to all assesses. Section 36(1)(viia) provides for deduction provision for bad & doubtful debts only to the eligible assesses. It is submitted that these are distinct and independent items ... under section 36(1) (vii) in addition to the benefit of deduction for the provision made for bad and doubtful debt(s) under section 36(1) (viia). Normally, a deduction for bad debt(s) can be allowed only if the debt is written off in the books as bad debt

Solapur Siddheshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Solapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Solapur

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

ITA 194/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

The Virudhunagar Dist Cetnral Co- Operative Bank Limited, Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, -Dcat, Madurai-2, Virudhunagar

ITA 2790/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manoj Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

case of banks the provision for NPA has to be added back and only after such add back that deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) can be claimed by the banks." Vide submission dated 03/02/2021 and 03/07/2023 Appellant maintains the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that ... stated above. Lastly, the provision for NPA created by scheduled bank is added back and only thereafter deduction is made permissible under Section 36(1)(viia) as claimed". As pointed out above, matter before the Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Vs JCIT was whether in the case

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

while arriving at the assessed income included the provision made towards country risk for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(b) i.e. an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income. The DRP confirmed the decision of the AO on both counts that ... that the same to be considered with other provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(b). The ground raised by the assessee is with regard to AO not allowing the claim separately as a deduction under section 37. The department

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

while arriving at the assessed income included the provision made towards country risk for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(b) i.e. an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income. The DRP confirmed the decision of the AO on both counts that ... that the same to be considered with other provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(b). The ground raised by the assessee is with regard to AO not allowing the claim separately as a deduction under section 37. The department

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

while arriving at the assessed income included the provision made towards country risk for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(b) i.e. an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income. The DRP confirmed the decision of the AO on both counts that ... that the same to be considered with other provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(b). The ground raised by the assessee is with regard to AO not allowing the claim separately as a deduction under section 37. The department

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

while arriving at the assessed income included the provision made towards country risk for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(b) i.e. an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income. The DRP confirmed the decision of the AO on both counts that ... that the same to be considered with other provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(b). The ground raised by the assessee is with regard to AO not allowing the claim separately as a deduction under section 37. The department

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

while arriving at the assessed income included the provision made towards country risk for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(b) i.e. an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income. The DRP confirmed the decision of the AO on both counts that ... that the same to be considered with other provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(b). The ground raised by the assessee is with regard to AO not allowing the claim separately as a deduction under section 37. The department

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

while arriving at the assessed income included the provision made towards country risk for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(b) i.e. an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income. The DRP confirmed the decision of the AO on both counts that ... that the same to be considered with other provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(b). The ground raised by the assessee is with regard to AO not allowing the claim separately as a deduction under section 37. The department

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

while arriving at the assessed income included the provision made towards country risk for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under Section 36(1)(viia)(b) i.e. an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income. The DRP confirmed the decision of the AO on both counts that ... that the same to be considered with other provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(b). The ground raised by the assessee is with regard to AO not allowing the claim separately as a deduction under Section 37. The department

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

while arriving at the assessed income included the provision made towards country risk for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(b) i.e. an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income. The DRP confirmed the decision of the AO on both counts that ... that the same to be considered with other provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(b). The ground raised by the assessee is with regard to AO not allowing the claim separately as a deduction under Section 37. The department

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

while arriving at the assessed income included the provision made towards country risk for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(b) i.e. an amount not exceeding 5% of the total income. The DRP confirmed the decision of the AO on both counts that ... that the same to be considered with other provisions made towards bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(b). The ground raised by the assessee is with regard to AO not allowing the claim separately as a deduction under section 37. The department