← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(vii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)853 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(vii) is TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397), cited in 714 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii)

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.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
347 ITR 272 · 2012 · High Court
516
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts before making any disallowance.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 1 · 1959 · Supreme Court
341
citing judgments

When following the mercantile system of accounting, provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as deductions, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 270 · 2012 · Supreme Court
326
citing judgments

For a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), the debt must be actually written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, distinct from merely making a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee bears the onus to satisfy the conditions under both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act.

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(vii)

Ishan Equipments Private Limited, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara, Chakli Circle

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

ITA 235/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.235/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ishan Equipments Pvt.Ltd. The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Survey No.144-15, Nh No.8 Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. Sankharda Vadodara Nr. Police Chowki Vadodara – 391 350 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci 4131 R (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43B

additions, including: • Disallowance of penalty expenditure amounting to Rs.4,81,985/- under section 37. • Disallowance of bad debts of Rs.24,50,304/- under section 36(1)(vii). 3. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who partially allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the remaining ... books, and there is no need to establish that the debt is irrecoverable. The AR argued that all the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act were satisfied, and therefore the disallowance was unjustified. 5. The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the orders of lower authorities

Aarav Fragrance and Flavors Pvt Ltd, Thane Maharashtra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle One Thane

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

ITA 301/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Aarav Fragrances & Flavors Acit, Circle-1, Thane, Private Limited Maharashtra Plot A-152/153, Wagle Industrial Vs. Area, Road No. 25, Midc, Thane (West), Maharashtra-400604. Pan: Aagca 2145 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Athavale Revenue By : Dr. K.R. Subhash, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthavaleFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 29Section 36(2)

before the 9 Aarav Fragrances And Flavors Private Limited A.Y. 2016-17 Ld.AO. However, the Ld.AO proceeded to verify the requirement as per section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Act, for the reason that the assessee nomenclated these expenditure to be bad debt. 4.7. Before the Ld.CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhpaur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

36(l)(vii) 2. 46. Section 36(l)(viia) of the Act provides for deduction of provision for bad debts, while Section 36(1 )(vii) deals with deduction for bad debts actually written off. In the facts of the assessee, it has actually written off bad debts in relation ... provision was ever created by the assessee in relation to these debts. The claim would therefore be fully governed by Section 36(1 )(vii) and not hit by Section 36(l)(via) at all. 47. Detailed arguments on the allowability of the claim has been made by the assessee before

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Co. Circle - II (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

basis of the Rule 8D(2) which was substituted w.e.f 02.06.2016 by the Income-tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Interest on Debenture- Rs. 92,24,44,539/- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in questioning the eligibility ... Appellant to claim the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act and which has been examined and allowed by the assessing officer. 2.2 The learned

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 878/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

basis of the Rule 8D(2) which was substituted w.e.f 02.06.2016 by the Income-tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Interest on Debenture- Rs. 92,24,44,539/- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in questioning the eligibility ... Appellant to claim the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act and which has been examined and allowed by the assessing officer. 2.2 The learned

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

ITA 877/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

basis of the Rule 8D(2) which was substituted w.e.f 02.06.2016 by the Income-tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016. 2. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Interest on Debenture- Rs. 92,24,44,539/- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in questioning the eligibility ... Appellant to claim the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vi) of the Act and which has been examined and allowed by the assessing officer. 2.2 The learned

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)

bank. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the non- rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant ... India vs Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats (P.) Ltd [2018] 91 taxmann.com 67 (SC) in interpreting the words 'such debt' contained in proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income

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)

bank. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the non- rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant ... India vs Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats (P.) Ltd [2018] 91 taxmann.com 67 (SC) in interpreting the words 'such debt' contained in proviso to Section 36(1)(vii). 2.4. The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2892/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule- CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

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)

never crossed the claim of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act by the assessee. Whereas, the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is allowed to the extent it exceeds the opening credit balance in the provision account maintained under section 36(1)(viia ... This is the 2nd stream of deduction. 16. No deduction of the bad debts written off is allowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is lower than the deduction allowed under section 36 (1)(viia). In this regard, if a recovery is effected

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)

never crossed the claim of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act by the assessee. Whereas, the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is allowed to the extent it exceeds the opening credit balance in the provision account maintained under section 36(1)(viia ... This is the 2nd stream of deduction. 16. No deduction of the bad debts written off is allowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is lower than the deduction allowed under section 36 (1)(viia). In this regard, if a recovery is effected

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)

never crossed the claim of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act by the assessee. Whereas, the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is allowed to the extent it exceeds the opening credit balance in the provision account maintained under section 36(1)(viia ... This is the 2nd stream of deduction. 16. No deduction of the bad debts written off is allowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is lower than the deduction allowed under section 36 (1)(viia). In this regard, if a recovery is effected

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)

never crossed the claim of deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act by the assessee. Whereas, the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is allowed to the extent it exceeds the opening credit balance in the provision account maintained under section 36(1)(viia ... This is the 2nd stream of deduction. 16. No deduction of the bad debts written off is allowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is lower than the deduction allowed under section 36 (1)(viia). In this regard, if a recovery is effected

M/S.State Bank of India(Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 252/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vili)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

M/S.State Bank of India(Successor to State Bank of Travancore), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 251/COCH/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Sri Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vili)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2918/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Export Import Bank Of India Pcit, Mumbai-3, Mumbai World Trade Centre Complex, Vs Centre One Building, Floor 21, Colaba S.O., Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaace 2769 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 263Section 90

excess amount of Rs.19,04,43,73,175/- (Rs. 19,12,96,10,120/- less Rs. 8,52,36,945/-) is claimed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Enclosed statement giving details of bad debts written off as irrecoverable during the year and the amount claimed ... admissible deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act (page nos. 536). The said position is tabulated hereunder: Opening balance in provision for bad and - doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) Provision claimed as admissible deduction 8,52,36,945 under section 36(1)(viia

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)

account u/s.36(1)(viia). 3.7. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is not applicable to the depreciation on SRs of Rs. 36,57,40,426/-. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred ... erred in disallowing the non-rural debts written off by the Appellant bank, which are not covered by the proviso to section 36(1)(vii). 4.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the bad debts claim by holding that deduction in respect of the bad debts actually written

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)

account u/s.36(1)(viia). 3.7. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is not applicable to the depreciation on SRs of Rs. 36,57,40,426/-. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred ... erred in disallowing the non-rural debts written off by the Appellant bank, which are not covered by the proviso to section 36(1)(vii). 4.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the bad debts claim by holding that deduction in respect of the bad debts actually written

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

Bench ‘A’ in the case of DCIT v/s Vidras India Ceramics (P.) Ltd. – [2021] 129 taxmann.com 320 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) [PB 84-89] Headnote - Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Bad debts (Write off) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee-company engaged in manufacturing and trading of ceramics ... such simultaneous reduction from sundry debtors amounted to actual write off of debt and hence same was to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) - Held, yes [Para 15.6] [In favour of assessee] [PB 84]. 13. In view of above legal and factual position the case

ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

illegal :- It is submitted by the assessee company is that during the relevant assessment year 2015-16, the assessee had in terms of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, claimed deduction for bad debts written off aggregating to Rs. 62,15,000/- viz(1) Bank guarantee invoked ... assessee company on 23/02/2015 (page 100-101 of paper book), It is further averred by the assessee company that the condition stipulated in Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act is that the debt on part thereof should have been taken into account for computing income. In other words even