“Section 36(1)(vil)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(vil)7 judgments

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

GOLDIAM JEWELLERY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CC 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 3272/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms Padmavathy Svs. Acit – Cc 1(2) Goldiam Jewellery Ltd Mumbai. G-10, Ground Floor, Gems & Jewellery Complex Ii, Seeps Sez, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400096. Pan/Gir No. Aaccg3424F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

manner in which the actual write off takes place under the accounting principle. It was noticed that prior to 1.4.1989 amendment in section 36(1)(vil), even the provision for the bad debt could be treated as write off. After 1.4.1989 however, a mere provision for bad debt would

CRAVATEX LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3440/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(vil)Section 37(1)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND

E-ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE( NOW AMALGAMATED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK- PNB),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-07, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 849/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 E-Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Acit, (Now Amalgamated With Special Range-07 Punjab National Bank-Pnb) New Delhi. Punjab National Bank, Finance Division Plot No. 4, Sector Dwarka, New Delhi- 110 075 Pan Aaaco0191M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vila)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

M/S. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1778/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Small Industries Development Dcit Circle-3(3)(2), Bank Of India, Aaykar Bhavan, Sme Development Centre C-11, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400020. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aabcs 3480 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN

ACIT - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. (NO MERGED WITH HDFC BANK LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6186/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Deharia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

advances. That part of Provision written back in relation to the debts written off ere reduced from the debts under the proviso to section 36(1)(vil) and the deduction allowed as bad debt under that section is the net of the opening 5 A.Y. 2002-03 M/s. Lord Krishna