BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

143 results for “section 68”+ Section 36(1)(via)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi431Mumbai377Bangalore211Chennai143Jaipur110Karnataka104Ahmedabad87Pune80Kolkata60Hyderabad54Chandigarh48Telangana34Nagpur33Panaji29Indore29Guwahati21Cochin18Calcutta18Surat17Cuttack16Visakhapatnam11SC11Amritsar8Lucknow7Rajasthan5Orissa3Raipur3Rajkot3Varanasi2Ranchi1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Allahabad1Agra1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 153A52Section 14A47Section 4039Addition to Income36Disallowance34Section 271A29Penalty29Section 19526Section 526Deduction

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

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

ITA 855/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained that" Rural branch means only rural branches of a Scheduled bank or non scheduled bank are eligible for the 10% of aggregate average advances of its rural branches . Since the assessee is Co-operative bank and not a scheduled or non scheduled it is not entitled

Showing 1–20 of 143 · Page 1 of 8

...
22
Section 143(3)18
Section 3516

THE CUDDALORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

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

ITA 2645/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained that" Rural branch means only rural branches of a Scheduled bank or non scheduled bank are eligible for the 10% of aggregate average advances of its rural branches . Since the assessee is Co-operative bank and not a scheduled or non scheduled it is not entitled

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERTATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

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

ITA 854/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained that" Rural branch means only rural branches of a Scheduled bank or non scheduled bank are eligible for the 10% of aggregate average advances of its rural branches . Since the assessee is Co-operative bank and not a scheduled or non scheduled it is not entitled

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, CUDDALORE

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

ITA 858/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained that" Rural branch means only rural branches of a Scheduled bank or non scheduled bank are eligible for the 10% of aggregate average advances of its rural branches . Since the assessee is Co-operative bank and not a scheduled or non scheduled it is not entitled

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-II,, CUDDALORE

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

ITA 857/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained that" Rural branch means only rural branches of a Scheduled bank or non scheduled bank are eligible for the 10% of aggregate average advances of its rural branches . Since the assessee is Co-operative bank and not a scheduled or non scheduled it is not entitled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CUDDALLORE vs. M/S VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., VILLUPURAM

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

ITA 981/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained that" Rural branch means only rural branches of a Scheduled bank or non scheduled bank are eligible for the 10% of aggregate average advances of its rural branches . Since the assessee is Co-operative bank and not a scheduled or non scheduled it is not entitled

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPRUAM

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

ITA 856/CHNY/2020[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

via) of the Act with regard to "rural branch" it has been explained that" Rural branch means only rural branches of a Scheduled bank or non scheduled bank are eligible for the 10% of aggregate average advances of its rural branches . Since the assessee is Co-operative bank and not a scheduled or non scheduled it is not entitled

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JSR INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 801ASection 80I

36 taxmann.com 523, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that it is not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure which has is not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure which has is not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure which has not been claimed

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2035/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1803/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1804/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2034/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1671/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1801/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1802/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, PUDUKKOTTAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1198/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathianarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

VIA and an amount not exceeding ten per cent of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner: Accordingly, Ld. AO held an opinion that any provision for bad debts made by the assessee in the Profit and Loss account alone is eligible to be considered for deduction under this section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

68,89,00,000 under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act; and o Disallowance of interest expenditure of INR 5,70,62,500 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, being computed at 10% of the buyback value, i.e., 57,06,25,000 :-9-: ITA Nos.:1339, 1616/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.66/Chny/2025 • Pursuant to the appeal filed

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

68,89,00,000 under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act; and o Disallowance of interest expenditure of INR 5,70,62,500 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, being computed at 10% of the buyback value, i.e., 57,06,25,000 :-9-: ITA Nos.:1339, 1616/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.66/Chny/2025 • Pursuant to the appeal filed

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

ITA 2326/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

VIA (d) Total of (b) and (a) 28,23,69,617/- (e) Provision made for Bad and doubtful debts 24,48,02,775/- by the Bank 11 I.T.A. Nos.2325 & 2326/Mds/16 I.T.A. Nos.2433 & 2649/Mds/16 (f) Least of (d) or (e) allowable as deduction 24,48,02,775/- u/s 36(1)(viia) 14. Aggrieved, the assessee moved in appeal before

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

ITA 2433/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14A

VIA (d) Total of (b) and (a) 28,23,69,617/- (e) Provision made for Bad and doubtful debts 24,48,02,775/- by the Bank 11 I.T.A. Nos.2325 & 2326/Mds/16 I.T.A. Nos.2433 & 2649/Mds/16 (f) Least of (d) or (e) allowable as deduction 24,48,02,775/- u/s 36(1)(viia) 14. Aggrieved, the assessee moved in appeal before