← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(via)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(via)69 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(via) is ITO v. Diza (255 ITR 573), cited in 42 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(via)

ITO v. Diza
255 ITR 573 · 2002 · High Court
42
citing judgments

For an addition under Section 68, the assessee must satisfactorily explain the source of depositors and their creditworthiness; mere receipt of funds via banking channels or furnishing particulars is not conclusive proof of genuineness.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(via)

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee made a claim that for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 36(1)(via) the rural advances given by Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd. (BFIL) an NBFC which got amalgamated with the assessee company from the appointed date

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee made a claim that for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 36(1)(via) the rural advances given by Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd. (BFIL) an NBFC which got amalgamated with the assessee company from the appointed date

Indusind Bank Ltd, 8Th Floor, Tower 1, One India Bulls Centre Delisle Road vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1841/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee made a claim that for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 36(1)(via) the rural advances given by Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd. (BFIL) an NBFC which got amalgamated with the assessee company from the appointed date

Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari Bank Ltd., Amreli vs. The DCIT-ACIT-2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M.Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

debts though under different nomenclature, viz., 'Reserve for NPA in accordance with RBI directions, this would not disentitle assessee for laiming deduction under section 36(1) (via) (a) - Held, yes [Paras 7 & 8] [In favour of assessee. ii Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., In re. [2009] 180 Taxman ... doubtful debts as required by section 36(1) (viia)(c) On facts, it was clear that intention of assessee was for deduction under section 36(1)(via) only, though 'provision' was nomenclatured as 'reserve'- Whether even if entry was termed as 'reserve' which according to assessee was in pursuance

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. The Sutex Co.Operative Bank Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 780/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.780/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. The Sutex Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ward – 1(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Bank Block, Surat Textile Surat Market, Ring Road, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat2953Q (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025

Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

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

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

ITA 316/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
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)

assessee had also proved with evidences that provision for NPA is nothing but provisions for bad and doubtful debts created in terms of section 36(1)(via) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the AO cannot disallow entire deduction claimed merely on the basis of nomenclature used

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)

assessee had also proved with evidences that provision for NPA is nothing but provisions for bad and doubtful debts created in terms of section 36(1)(via) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the AO cannot disallow entire deduction claimed merely on the basis of nomenclature used

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)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

ACIT Circle 1 (1)&Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited., Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2333/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

which represent provision on regular/standard made as per RBI prudential norms for banks. 38. The AO held that the provision under section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows the claim of provision only in relation to bad and doubtful debts whereas regular/standard assets are not bad or doubtful debt ... assessee. 39. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contended that as per the provision of section 36(1)(via) of the Act, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction up to 7.5% of total income and 10% of total advances made by the rural

ACIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2332/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

which represent provision on regular/standard made as per RBI prudential norms for banks. 38. The AO held that the provision under section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows the claim of provision only in relation to bad and doubtful debts whereas regular/standard assets are not bad or doubtful debt ... assessee. 39. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contended that as per the provision of section 36(1)(via) of the Act, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction up to 7.5% of total income and 10% of total advances made by the rural

ACIT Circle1(1)& Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S South Kanara District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2331/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

which represent provision on regular/standard made as per RBI prudential norms for banks. 38. The AO held that the provision under section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows the claim of provision only in relation to bad and doubtful debts whereas regular/standard assets are not bad or doubtful debt ... assessee. 39. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contended that as per the provision of section 36(1)(via) of the Act, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction up to 7.5% of total income and 10% of total advances made by the rural

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 219/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

which represent provision on regular/standard made as per RBI prudential norms for banks. 38. The AO held that the provision under section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows the claim of provision only in relation to bad and doubtful debts whereas regular/standard assets are not bad or doubtful debt ... assessee. 39. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contended that as per the provision of section 36(1)(via) of the Act, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction up to 7.5% of total income and 10% of total advances made by the rural

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 218/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

which represent provision on regular/standard made as per RBI prudential norms for banks. 38. The AO held that the provision under section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows the claim of provision only in relation to bad and doubtful debts whereas regular/standard assets are not bad or doubtful debt ... assessee. 39. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contended that as per the provision of section 36(1)(via) of the Act, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction up to 7.5% of total income and 10% of total advances made by the rural

M/S the South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 217/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

which represent provision on regular/standard made as per RBI prudential norms for banks. 38. The AO held that the provision under section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows the claim of provision only in relation to bad and doubtful debts whereas regular/standard assets are not bad or doubtful debt ... assessee. 39. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and contended that as per the provision of section 36(1)(via) of the Act, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction up to 7.5% of total income and 10% of total advances made by the rural

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 682/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Akshay Nagrajan, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

claim of deduction made by the bank u/s 36(1)(viia) was examined in details. As per section 36(1)(via) the average aggregate advances made by rural branches will be taken into consideration for calculating the deduction available u/s 36(1)(viia). During the course of verification of details

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 659/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Akshay Nagrajan, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

claim of deduction made by the bank u/s 36(1)(viia) was examined in details. As per section 36(1)(via) the average aggregate advances made by rural branches will be taken into consideration for calculating the deduction available u/s 36(1)(viia). During the course of verification of details

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nanded vs. Latur District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1222/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

respect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts for an amount of 7,19,89,000/-. For the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(via), the assessee must satisfy twin conditions of 1) being an entity specified under section 36(1)(via) and 2) having debited or provided ... Regulatory guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and that would be sufficient for the appellant to make a claim under section 36(1)(via) of the Act. Further, as the appellant is obligated to make provision in respect of the non-performing assets as per the Reserve Bank

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 365/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

lying in provision for bad and doubtful account u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act for Rs.1014,06,21,916 /-. Further, the of section 36(1)(via) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the AO cannot disallow entire deduction claimed merely on the basis of nomenclature used

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

lying in provision for bad and doubtful account u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act for Rs.1014,06,21,916 /-. Further, the of section 36(1)(via) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the AO cannot disallow entire deduction claimed merely on the basis of nomenclature used

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 351/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.350 & 351/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7375C] (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.364 & 365/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Union Bank Of India Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Circle-1(1) Mumbai Hyderabad [Pan : Aaacu0564G (Aabca7375C)] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 05/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G., A.M

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan &For Respondent: Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

lying in provision for bad and doubtful account u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act for Rs.1014,06,21,916 /-. Further, the of section 36(1)(via) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, the AO cannot disallow entire deduction claimed merely on the basis of nomenclature used