← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(viiia)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(viiia)16 judgments

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(viiia)

Bajaj Finance Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune

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

ITA 565/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 80J

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

The South Indian Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)&Tps, Thrissur

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

ITA 287/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 The South Indian Bank Ltd., .......... Appellant Head Office, Mission Quarters, T.B. Road, Thrissur. [Pan: Aabct 0022 F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle-1(1) & Tps, Thrissur Appellant By: Shri Naresh C, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Scheduled Bank, Engaged In The Business Of Banking. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 31/03/2018 Declaring Income Of Rs. 446,81,29,140/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viiia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Assessment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 24/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 250

under appeal in the computation of income. However, Page | 5 ITA Nos. 22 to 24/Del/2024 such claim is not allowable in terms of section 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. Therefore, he prayed for restoration of the disallowance made by AO. 14. On the other hand, the learned

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 23/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 250

under appeal in the computation of income. However, Page | 5 ITA Nos. 22 to 24/Del/2024 such claim is not allowable in terms of section 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. Therefore, he prayed for restoration of the disallowance made by AO. 14. On the other hand, the learned

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-25(1), New Delhi vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 22/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 14ASection 250

under appeal in the computation of income. However, Page | 5 ITA Nos. 22 to 24/Del/2024 such claim is not allowable in terms of section 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. Therefore, he prayed for restoration of the disallowance made by AO. 14. On the other hand, the learned

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH: PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING IN KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द

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)

reading of provision contained in section 36(1)(viia) and explanatory note dated 30-6-1982 it is evident that deduction provided in section 36(1)(viiia) shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt therein in computing the income. The condition precedent for elaiming deduction under section 36

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 18/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.18/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M. Murali, CITFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(viiia)

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

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

probably only incorrect calculation of the provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the assessee under ITA No.144 to 146/Ahd/2023 7 section 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. The error being that special reserve claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viii

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

probably only incorrect calculation of the provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the assessee under ITA No.144 to 146/Ahd/2023 7 section 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. The error being that special reserve claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viii

The Mehsana Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

probably only incorrect calculation of the provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the assessee under ITA No.144 to 146/Ahd/2023 7 section 36(1)(viiia) of the Act. The error being that special reserve claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viii

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

Goetze India Limited vs. CIT) we respectfully submit that the Bank has not made any additional claim in respect of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viiia) and therefore the question of Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India Limited vs. CIT is not applicable. The higher ICICI ... Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 deduction granted under section 36(1)(viiia) is on account of the increase in business income due to additions/disallowances made in the assessment order. Hence the deduction u/s 36(viiia) has been correctly allowed to the Bank. 4.5 With respect to your goodself's observation

DCIT, Circle-2(2), Surat vs. The Surat District Co-Op. Bank Limited, Surat

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

doubtful debts made by a scheduled bank [not being a bank approved by the Central Government for the purposes of section 36(1)(viiia) or a bank incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India] or a non- scheduled bank, an amount not exceeding ten per cent

The Surat District Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 590/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

doubtful debts made by a scheduled bank [not being a bank approved by the Central Government for the purposes of section 36(1)(viiia) or a bank incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India] or a non- scheduled bank, an amount not exceeding ten per cent

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80GSection 80L

1 ITA 923/Mum/2023 Union Bank of India IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY

DCIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Moradabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Moradabad

In the result the appeal of the ld AO is partly allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Moradabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd, Circle-1, Court Road, Moradabad Moradabad Pan: Aaabm0292N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. S. Kashyap, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43BSection 80P

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. N. CHARY