← 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)

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 350/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), Pune vs. Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

ITA 428/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

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

Bank of Maharashtra, Pune vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 259/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan & Smt. Abarna CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)

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

Finova Capital Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 263

debited by the assessee for Standard Assets Provisions which is not allowable as per provision of sections of section 36(1)(via) of the Act. Further it was also noticed by her that while computing taxable income as per Income Tax Act, on account of “Syndication fees for CCPS issue ... Advances) to the Profit and Loss account, an amount of Rs. 30,63,618/- was debited for 'Standard Assets Provisions. As per section 36(1)(via) of the Act:- "in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by a scheduled bank [ not being a bank incorporated

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1212/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.(Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1211/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1210/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1209/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Sikkim State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Sisco Bank), Gangtok vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1208/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur Dist Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

been found to be incorrect. I agree with the appellant's argument that the quantum of allowable deduction in terms of provisions of section 36(1)(via) of I.T. Act 1961 at 46.57 crores is also not disputed, but the disallowance came to be made only on account

Kolkata Police Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-35, Kolkata

ITA 142/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

disallowability of total sum of Rs. 26,51,59,000/- which was earmarked by the assessee as “Provisions for standard Asset” as per section 36(1)(via) read with section 37 of the Act. She while observing so noted circular no. 17/2008 of CBDT where in it was laid down

Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone vs. The Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 180/IND/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Indore01 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cpc / Nfac Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.07.2024

Section 14BSection 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

M/S. Data Patterns (India) Ltd, Chennai vs. AO, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri M.K Rangasamy, C.A HIFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(via)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा" एवं

ITO-28.3.1, Mumbai vs. Vaibhav Co Op Credit Society, Ghansoli

ITA 46/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Malay J. GosraniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(via)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Rs.62,32,303/- by holding that the assessee is a Co-operative Society and not a Co-operative Bank and accordingly application of section 36(1)(via) of the Act is factually unsustainable in this case. Vaibhav Co-op Credit Society, AY 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2021-22 3. Whether

ITO-28.3.1, Mumbai vs. Vaibhav Co Op Credit Society, Ghansoli

ITA 44/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Malay J. GosraniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(via)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Rs.62,32,303/- by holding that the assessee is a Co-operative Society and not a Co-operative Bank and accordingly application of section 36(1)(via) of the Act is factually unsustainable in this case. Vaibhav Co-op Credit Society, AY 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2021-22 3. Whether

ITO-28.3.1, Mumbai vs. Vaibhav Co Op Credit Society, Ghansoli

ITA 298/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Malay J. GosraniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(via)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Rs.62,32,303/- by holding that the assessee is a Co-operative Society and not a Co-operative Bank and accordingly application of section 36(1)(via) of the Act is factually unsustainable in this case. Vaibhav Co-op Credit Society, AY 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2021-22 3. Whether

A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Warangal vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 416/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

limiting the entire deduction to Rs.17,02,00,000/-. 8. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal contending that section 36(1)(via) of the Act allows deduction in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts without making any distinction between provision made for rural or urban advances

Shyam Sunder, Bhopal vs. The CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assesse is dismissed

ITA 161/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshyam Sunder Trivedi Ito1(4) Opp.-1 Vashundra State Bank Bhopal Vs. Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Actpt 3280G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(via)Section 43B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC- DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1703/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chougule, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(via)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH