← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(viia)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)(c)66 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(viia)(c) is Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, Range10(2), Mumbai (234 CTR 1), cited in 97 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(viia)(c)

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, Range10(2), Mumbai
234 CTR 1 · 2010 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income not forming part of the total income is not deductible under Section 14A(1). The disallowance must be restricted to direct and indirect expenses having an approximate connection with the earning of such exempt income, and Rule 8D applies from Assessment Year 2008-09.

ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd.
119 TTJ 289 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is attracted even when no exempt income is actually earned from investments in the relevant year, as long as the income from such investments does not or shall not form part of the total income.

CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd.
262 ITR 587 · 2003 · High Court
39
citing judgments

The fiction created by Section 50(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only to the computation of capital gains under Sections 48 and 49, and not to other provisions. Section 54E is available for exemption irrespective of whether the asset is depreciable or not.

CIT v. Gokaldas Images (P.) Ltd.
122 Taxmann.com 160 · 2020 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not to be considered while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Act.

DCIT v. AIG Home Finance India Ltd.
13 Taxmann.com 168 · 2011 · Reported
38
citing judgments

Securitisation income derived from the business of long-term housing finance is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even if the assessee continues to bear the risk of default.

State Bank of Travancore v. ACIT
318 ITR 171 · Reported
37
citing judgments

Investments made by a bank to maintain the Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) mandated by the RBI, which yield tax-free interest, are not subject to disallowance under Section 14A. The mandatory nature of these investments requires their exclusion when computing disallowances.

CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.
52 Taxmann.com 164 · 2014 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Revision proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated if the Assessing Officer has considered an issue and adopted a view permissible in law.

Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT
261 ITR 708 · 2003 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Amendments to Section 36(1)(viii) are prospective, meaning deductions allowed for amounts transferred to a special reserve prior to the amendment, and subsequently withdrawn, cannot be subjected to tax for assessment years prior to the amendment's effective date.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(viia)(c)

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1954/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hudco Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3704/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3305/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai 3, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2798/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Am) Small Industries Development Principal Bank Of India Commissioner Of I.T. Swavalamban Bhavan, C-11 Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th G Block, Bandra Kurala Floor, Aayakar Complex, Bandra East Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aabcs3480N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Chhajed &
Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, where it was held as follows :- “In view of the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(c) produced above, it can be seen that the amount of deduction is computed by viewing the total income computed before making any deduction under ... correctly allowable u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) it would be essential to first compute deduction u/s 36(1) (viii). Thus, provision of section 36(1)(viia)(c) comes into operation at a stage subsequent to the computation of business income i.e. after allowing the deduction u/s.36(1)(viii). Further, time

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7865/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd (Hudco), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7629/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd (Hudco), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7628/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd (Hudco), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7626/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3164/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

assessee in the books of account subject to limit of 5% of total income in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1) (viia)(c) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viia)(c) provides that an assessee being a public financial institution or a state financial corporation or a state ... c) of as stipulated in section 36(2)(v) of the Act and also the provision for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia)(c), which is limited to 5% of the total income before making any deduction under Chapter-VIA. 12. The assessee, however

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3161/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

assessee in the books of account subject to limit of 5% of total income in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1) (viia)(c) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viia)(c) provides that an assessee being a public financial institution or a state financial corporation or a state ... c) of as stipulated in section 36(2)(v) of the Act and also the provision for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia)(c), which is limited to 5% of the total income before making any deduction under Chapter-VIA. 12. The assessee, however

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3157/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

assessee in the books of account subject to limit of 5% of total income in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1) (viia)(c) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viia)(c) provides that an assessee being a public financial institution or a state financial corporation or a state ... c) of as stipulated in section 36(2)(v) of the Act and also the provision for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia)(c), which is limited to 5% of the total income before making any deduction under Chapter-VIA. 12. The assessee, however

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 817/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 35DSection 80C

1)(viia)(c) of the Act, wherein the Tribunal has decided the grounds of appeal as under:- 2. Denial of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (c) of the Act - Provision for Standard Assets - Rs.49,85,00,000/- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact ... assets is as per provisioning policy of the Appellant in respect of stressed and doubtful assets and is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (c) of the Act. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that deduction under section 36(1

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT-Range-II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1263/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 35DSection 80C

1)(viia)(c) of the Act, wherein the Tribunal has decided the grounds of appeal as under:- 2. Denial of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (c) of the Act - Provision for Standard Assets - Rs.49,85,00,000/- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact ... assets is as per provisioning policy of the Appellant in respect of stressed and doubtful assets and is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (c) of the Act. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that deduction under section 36(1

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Capital First Limited(Merged With Idfc First Bank Limited), Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1692/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1692/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 63/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No. 1692/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Capital First Limited (Merged With Income Tax, Idfc Bank Limited), Kpm Tower, 7Th Floor, No. 1, Harrington Road, Corporate Circle 11, Chennai. Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. [Pan:Aacck6863C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In The Revenue’S Appeal & The Cross Objections Of The Assessee Are Similar & Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने

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)

long-term finance' as envisaged in the explanation to section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. 3. Denial of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act - Provision for bad and doubtful debts - Rs. 51,77,84,317- 3.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering ... fact that the provision is as per provisioning policy of the Appellant in respect of stressed advances is eligible for deduction under section 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that deduction under section 36(1)(viia

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)

long-term finance' as envisaged in the explanation to section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. 3. Denial of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act - Provision for bad and doubtful debts - Rs. 51,77,84,317- 3.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering ... fact that the provision is as per provisioning policy of the Appellant in respect of stressed advances is eligible for deduction under section 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that deduction under section 36(1)(viia

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)

long-term finance' as envisaged in the explanation to section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. 3. Denial of deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act - Provision for bad and doubtful debts - Rs. 51,77,84,317- 3.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering ... fact that the provision is as per provisioning policy of the Appellant in respect of stressed advances is eligible for deduction under section 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that deduction under section 36(1)(viia

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 819/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 818/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने