“Section 36(2)(v)”

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्याय पीठ मुंबई में।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“H” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्याय पीठ मुंबई में।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“H” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

nprovisions already allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). The use of word 'credit balance'\nin proviso to section 36(1)(vii) and 'debited' in section 36(2)(v), has been\nstretched too far by the assessee and its learned advisors, to give an absurd\nmeaning to the provisions itself. The basic ... rural branches of such bank. As\nregards the deduction for bad debts, it is also relevant to note the provisions\nof section 36(2)(v) of the Act, which reads as follows:-\n\"(2) In making any deduction for a bad debt or part thereof, the following\nprovisions shall apply

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

said account to the extent of credit balance and as per proviso to section 36(1)(vii), excess is allowable as bad debt. Section 36(2)(v) clearly states that the assessee has to debit the bad debt or a part of it to the PBDD account. The excess cannot ... reducing bad debts and the excess amount of bad debts written off is to be claimed u/s 36(1)(vii). As per section 36(2)(v) only that part of bad debt is to be debited to the provision account for which there is a credit balance available

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

nprovisions already allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). The use of word 'credit balance'\nin proviso to section 36(1)(vii) and 'debited' in section 36(2)(v), has been\nstretched too far by the assessee and its learned advisors, to give an absurd\nmeaning to the provisions itself. The basic ... rural branches of such bank. As\nregards the deduction for bad debts, it is also relevant to note the provisions\nof section 36(2)(v) of the Act, which reads as follows:-\n\"(2) In making any deduction for a bad debt or part thereof, the following\nprovisions shall apply

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

said account to the extent of credit balance and as per proviso to section 36(1)(vii), excess is allowable as bad debt. Section 36(2)(v) clearly states that the assessee has to debit the bad debt or a part of it to the PBDD account. The excess cannot ... reducing bad debts and the excess amount of bad debts written off is to be claimed u/s 36(1)(vii). As per section 36(2)(v) only that part of bad debt is to be debited to the provision account for which there is a credit balance available

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

account\nmade under clause (viia) of section 36(1) and referred to in proviso to clause\n(vii) of section 36(1) and section 36(2)(v) applies to all types of advances,\nwhether rural or other advances. It has also been interpreted that there are\nseparate accounts in respect ... Explanation in clause (vii) of\nsection 36(1) stating that for the purposes of the proviso to section 36(1)(vii)\nand section 36(2)(v), only one account as referred to therein is made in respect\nof provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“I” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“I” BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nBEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

36(1)(viia). However, if no\nprovision is made in the books, no deduction is allowed under section\n36(1)(viia) as per section 36(2)(v) of the Act.\n14. Accordingly, for the purpose of determining taxable income, the provision\nmade of 2.100o is added back and offered

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

36(1)(viia). However, if no\nprovision is made in the books, no deduction is allowed under section\n36(1)(viia) as per section 36(2)(v) of the Act.\n14. Accordingly, for the purpose of determining taxable income, the provision\nmade of 2.100o is added back and offered

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

36(1)(viia). However, if no\nprovision is made in the books, no deduction is allowed under section\n36(1)(viia) as per section 36(2)(v) of the Act.\n14. Accordingly, for the purpose of determining taxable income, the provision\nmade of 2.100o is added back and offered

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

36(1)(viia). However, if no\nprovision is made in the books, no deduction is allowed under section\n36(1)(viia) as per section 36(2)(v) of the Act.\n14. Accordingly, for the purpose of determining taxable income, the provision\nmade of 2.100o is added back and offered