THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR vs. HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD., HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

36(1)(viia) including the impugned disallowance, and where the total deduction does not exceed the statutory limit there-under, no disallowance could be made. Here it may also be relevant to state that section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HOSHIARPUR vs. THE HOSIARPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

36(1)(viia) including the impugned disallowance, and where the total deduction does not exceed the statutory limit there-under, no disallowance could be made. Here it may also be relevant to state that section

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP. BANK LTD.,HOSHIARPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

36(1)(viia) including the impugned disallowance, and where the total deduction does not exceed the statutory limit there-under, no disallowance could be made. Here it may also be relevant to state that section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -IV, KAPURTHALA vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK, KAPURTHALA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

section 36(1)(viia) only provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowable as deduction. 6. That while allowing the relief of Rs. 3,53,47,000/-, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that it was a contingent liability and was not allowable as business expenditure. The P a g e | 3 ITA No. 784 & 731/Asr./2017

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR vs. THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryi.T.A No.453/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Cit, Vs. The Hoshiarpur Central Hoshiarpur Circle, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Hoshiarpur. Railway Road, Hoshiarpur.

section 36(1)(viia). The provision against standard loans being only a provision for bad and doubtful debts, would stand to be covered u/s. 36(1)(viia). That being the case, we find no reason for the Revenue impugning the provision against standard assets. Thus, subject to the limit prescribed u/s. 36(1) (viia), i.e., 7.5% of the income, being

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. THE NAWANSHAHR CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, NAWANSHAHR

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 61/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Aaaat4125G The Dy. C. I. T. Vs. The Nawanshahr Central Co-Op. Circle-Ii, Jalandhar. Bank Ltd. Nawanshahr, Distt. Doaba. (Appellant) (Respondent)

1(a). That while deleting the above addition of Rs. 34,00,000/-Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law by ignoring the fact that this disallowance was made by the A.O. in the light of provisions of section 36(l)(viia

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - IV,, JALANDHAR vs. M/S THE KAPURTHALA CENTRAL CO. OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KAPURTHALA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.543(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2014-15

disallowance of provision for Standard Assets. The concluding part of the order is reproduced herein below. “8. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material on record. We find that the assessee had created a provision of Rs.50,00,000/- which included a sum of Rs.13,25,000/- as provisions for bad and doubtful debts

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK, KAPURTHALA

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A No. 648/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Aaalp0309F Asst. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. Punjab Gramin Bank Circle-Iv, Jalandhar. Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) should also hear the assessee on the applicability of provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act. In view of the above, the appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.” In view of the above precedent we set aside the appeal of the assessee

PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK,KAPURTHALA vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A No. 648/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Aaalp0309F Asst. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. Punjab Gramin Bank Circle-Iv, Jalandhar. Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala. (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) should also hear the assessee on the applicability of provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act. In view of the above, the appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.” In view of the above precedent we set aside the appeal of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had allowed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had allowed

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had allowed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had allowed

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BATHINDA vs. M/S THE MUKTSAR CENTRAL CO-OP.BANK LTD, MUKTSAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 36(1 )(viia). 4 Asstt CIT v. The Muktsar Central Coop. Bank Ltd. 8. So far as the disallowances

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

disallowed 45% of the total expenses debited to the profit and loss account. 33. The aforesaid justification has not been controverted before us nor any infirmity worth its name pointed out by the Ld.Pr.CIT. On the contrary, we find, the Ld.Pr.CIT has tried to negate the claim of expenses against the aforestated incomes by stating that: a) Since the assessee