FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 36(1) (vii)of the Act, in consonance, with Vijaya Bank (supra) and the declaration made therein. The income tax appeals are partly allowed.” 8. We thus restore the assessee’s instant sec.36(1)(vii) disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for afresh verification in light of “Vijay Bank” and the relevant write off in the balance sheet

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenses incurred on QIP treating the same as capital expenditure. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have at least allowed deduction u/s 35D in respect of the said expenditure. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenses incurred on QIP treating the same as capital expenditure. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have at least allowed deduction u/s 35D in respect of the said expenditure. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenses incurred on QIP treating the same as capital expenditure. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have at least allowed deduction u/s 35D in respect of the said expenditure. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenses incurred on QIP treating the same as capital expenditure. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have at least allowed deduction u/s 35D in respect of the said expenditure. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenses incurred on QIP treating the same as capital expenditure. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have at least allowed deduction u/s 35D in respect of the said expenditure. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED ,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance of expenses incurred on QIP treating the same as capital expenditure. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have at least allowed deduction u/s 35D in respect of the said expenditure. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR vs. THE CSB BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowance of provisions of bad and doubtful debts to the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores is deleted. 3. The CIT(A) has erred on the following points while deleting the Book profit enhancement consequent to bad and doubtful debt the extent of Rs. 57.57 crores. 3.1. Vijaya Bank decision is applicable only for normal Income and not MAT Income [Minimum

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

1,17,70,000/- based on the analysis of the labour charges found in the ledger for the failure of the assessee to produce vouchers in support of labour charges. 13. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that such disallowance cannot be made based on estimates in the absence of any incriminating material found during

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

1,17,70,000/- based on the analysis of the labour charges found in the ledger for the failure of the assessee to produce vouchers in support of labour charges. 13. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that such disallowance cannot be made based on estimates in the absence of any incriminating material found during

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

1,17,70,000/- based on the analysis of the labour charges found in the ledger for the failure of the assessee to produce vouchers in support of labour charges. 13. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that such disallowance cannot be made based on estimates in the absence of any incriminating material found during

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

1,17,70,000/- based on the analysis of the labour charges found in the ledger for the failure of the assessee to produce vouchers in support of labour charges. 13. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that such disallowance cannot be made based on estimates in the absence of any incriminating material found during

HI-LITE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOZHIKODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

1) and therefore according to the amended provisions, no disallowance is warranted u/s. 40(a)(ia). 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Calcutta Export Co.(supra) has considered the issue of retrospective effect of amendment to section 40(a)(ia) and held that

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

disallowed the 30% of the interest payments and consequently levied the penalty u/s. 270A(1) of the Act as underreporting. As already stated, the word used in section 270A(1) is, the assessing officer “may” impose penalty which means that there is no mandatory direction given by the statute to impose penalty under the provision. Further, sub-section (2) gave