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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

viia) of Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

viia) of Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

viia) of Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

viia) of Section 36(1) of the Act, deduction allowable was up to 7.58 of the total income before deduction of this provision and deduction under Chapter VIA and 10% of the aggregate advances of rural branches. There is no dispute with respect to the limit of 7.58 on total income, which was assessee Bank. The Assessing Officer hence rightly

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

1)(viia), is to be with reference to debts other than those written off and, further, w.e.f. 01.04.1999 (i.e., AY 2000-01 onwards), to include advances by both rural and urban branches of a scheduled or unscheduled bank and, further, statutorily mandated (w.e.f. 01.04.2013) to be per a single account. Without doubt, recovery in an account qua which such

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

1)(viia), is to be with reference to debts other than those written off and, further, w.e.f. 01.04.1999 (i.e., AY 2000-01 onwards), to include advances by both rural and urban branches of a scheduled or unscheduled bank and, further, statutorily mandated (w.e.f. 01.04.2013) to be per a single account. Without doubt, recovery in an account qua which such

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)& 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. 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, 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. 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

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 deduction claimed u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act for the reason that the assessee has no rural branches. The AO finally came to the conclusion that the assessee has not furnished the details of the rural branches and therefore the assessee is not qualified for deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and also

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

disallowance in the ITR filed for AY 2017-18... as such amount claimed under section 36(1)(viia) is only

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.

disallowed on the ground that AO has not conducted inquiry regarding the claim of bad debts. As stated in earlier para, the full details of the claim were furnished to NeAC detailing the fact that there was no opening credit balance in provision for bad and doubtful debts account u/s 36(1)(viia) for tax purposes and hence the claim

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)(viia) deduction disallowance /addition amounting to Rs.10,90,20,000/- made in the course of assessment herein dated 16.12.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion as under : “2.3. I considered both the views expressed. As per section 36

M/S.STATE BANK OF INDIA(SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

1)(viia) deduction disallowance /addition amounting to Rs.10,90,20,000/- made in the course of assessment herein dated 16.12.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion as under : “2.3. I considered both the views expressed. As per section 36

THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE KOLLAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee sands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kollam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Chinnakada, Kollam 691001 [Pan: Aaaat4088L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 19.05.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A District Co- Operative Bank Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Lending Money To Its Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 01.11.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs. 16,14,89,500/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The 2 Kollam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle Kollam (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs. 26,20,34,663/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances/Additions: -

disallowance of provision u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. We have carefully perused the assessment order. The AO, after calling for information regarding rural branches, held that the branches mentioned in para 6 of the assessment order cannot be classified as rural branches as the population of such places exceed 10,000 as per the census of 2011. These