“Section 36(2)(v)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(2)(v)104 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(2)(v) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(2)(v)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court

2,118

citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court

1,629

citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court

1,392

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court

1,344

citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court

1,158

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT

323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court

714

citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises

298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court

706

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

Judgments citing Section 36(2)(v)

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Mangalore vs. Karnataka Bank Limited., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

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

M/S. Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1819/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

36(1)(viia). However, if no provision is made in the books, no deduction is allowed under section 36(1)(viia) as per section 36(2)(v) of the Act. 14. Accordingly, for the purpose of determining taxable income, the provision made of ₹.1000 is added back and offered

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Union of Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 1818/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir - (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

ITA 1440/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am, Ι.Τ.Α. No.1440/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 2 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1819/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit-3(4) 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Vs. M/S Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1441/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan : Aaacu0564G Dcit, Circle-(Ltu) 1 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 144Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

JCIT (OSD) Circle-2, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 635/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 145Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

amount by which such bad debts exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under Section 36(2)(v). 4.3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that non rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section 36 ... debts to the profit and loss account and correspondingly closed the debtor account. Further the assessee has to satisfy the conditions mentioned in section 36(2)(v): Sub clause (v) of section 36(2) categorically prescribes that no such deduction (bad debt write off) u/s 36(1)(vii) shall

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

ITA 620/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Finance &Control Dept., V. Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur - 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, No.44, Williams Road, Contanment, Trichy - 620 001. V. M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Finance &Control Dept., Erode Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Two Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy, Dated 16.03.2020 & Pertains To

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 145Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1230/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

claimed at Rs.581,68,70,494/-. The Assessing Officer by following the Board’s Circular No.17/2018 dated 26.11.2018 coupled with provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act, restricted the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) to the extent of actual provision created ... should be limited to claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and the overall claim of the assessee shall be subject to provisions of section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Since the assessee has already availed benefit u/s 36(1)(viia) for both creation of provision and actual written

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1018/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

ITA 1533/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

loans and advances outstanding on assets side of balance sheet. 4.4 The learned PCIT erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 36(2)(v) and proviso to section 36(1)(vii) are not applicable, as no deduction under section 36(1)(vila) is claimed by the appellant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati & Chandrapur Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Chandrapur

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

ITA 89/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

before the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, that the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) should be allowed as per section 36(2)(v) clearly show that the assessee was very well aware that it is not eligible to claim such deduction in excess of the amount ... fact that the assesse is not permitted to claim deduction in excess of the provision created in its books in terms of section 36(2)(v), the claim made by the assesse u/s 36(1)(viia) in the Return of Income in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts

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

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

ITA 399/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. M/S Chandrapur District Central Co-Oprative Bank Limted, Chandrapur

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

ITA 241/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

M/S Syndicate Bank, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Udupi

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1219/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Section 36(1)(vii) was only clarificatory in nature and provision allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) account referred in the proviso and Section 36(2)(v) was always only single ITA No.1219/Bang/2019 & ITA No.186/PAN/2019 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 5 of 32 account for all types of advances

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR

Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

without appreciating the fact and position of law that the bad debts allowable on advances made as per provisions of section 36(2) (v) have to be done in compliance with section 36(2) (viia) and no such deduction can be allowed if the provisioning has been made for business ... without appreciating the fact and position of law that the bad debts allowable on advances made as per provisions of section 36(2)(v) have to be done in compliance with section 36(2)(viia) and no such deduction can be allowed if the provisioning has been made for business

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR

Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru

ITA 562/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115TSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)

ITA Nos.555 & 562/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangalore Page 1 of 20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Mangalore vs. The Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangalore

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

ITA 555/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan & Smt. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115TSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)

The Andhra Pradesh State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 464/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

this issue it was directed that the Assessing Officer shall satisfy himself about the fulfillment of the condition stipulated in Section 36(2) (v) by the assessee keeping in view that Section 36(1)(viia) is applicable in the case of the assessee only with effect from 01.04.2007 for deduction ... ITAT, the Assessing Officer has to satisfy himself about the fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(2)(v). On the own admission of the assessee, APCOB has never made any provision under the said Section in the books of accounts till date