M/S.SOUTH MALABAR GRAMINA BANK,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR, THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), TIRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

36(1)(viia) in respect of rural branches which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not have any rural branch falling within the definition under explanation (ia) to section

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

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, 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 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

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, 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. 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. 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. 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

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

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

disallowance cannot be made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 6. We further observe that Section 80AC(ii) has been amended by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 01.04.2018. The case before us is related to AY 2016-17. Accordingly the amendment will not apply in this case for the impugned assessment year. A similar issue has been decided

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