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

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

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

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

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

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), KOCHI vs. M/S GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

vii), i.e., is not obliterated (written off), and represents normal provision toward diminution in the value of debtors, it would be liable to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia), an independent provision, which stands on its own footing, as explained in Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). This provision, though again liable to be reflected

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

vii), i.e., is not obliterated (written off), and represents normal provision toward diminution in the value of debtors, it would be liable to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia), an independent provision, which stands on its own footing, as explained in Catholic Syrian Bank v. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC). This provision, though again liable to be reflected

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowing it’s section 36(1)(vii) deduction on long term housing loans granted to various customers. Suffice to say, the same

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

36(1)(vii) for the Assessment year 2017-18 showed only a debit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful accounts there is no question of disallowing any deduction and hence even on merits revision of order of AO dated 17-02-2021 is not called for.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, pertains

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

36 Taxman 305 However, the AO was of the opinion that that this pre- operative expenditure should go to form part of cost of plant and machinery and buildings as envisaged u/s. 43(1) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure of pre-operative expenditure ofRs.13,28,53,754/-. iv. Disallowance of excess claim

FEDBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

vii) provides that “the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assesse for that previous year is an allowable deduction”. The said section is subject to provisions of sub section (2). Section 36(2) provides that “no deduction shall be allowed unless such debt or part

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

36,56,550/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 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

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

36,56,550/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 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