ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

36(1)(vii). Thus, the excess deduction of Rs.488,11,61,785/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 minus Rs.207,09,87,602/-) was disallowed. This was done by the AO considering the clarificatory amendment made by the Parliament vide Finance Act, 2013 by way of insertion of Explanation to section

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

36(1)(vii). Thus, the excess deduction of Rs.488,11,61,785/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 minus Rs.207,09,87,602/-) was disallowed. This was done by the AO considering the clarificatory amendment made by the Parliament vide Finance Act, 2013 by way of insertion of Explanation to section

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

36(1)(vii). Thus, the excess deduction of Rs.488,11,61,785/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 minus Rs.207,09,87,602/-) was disallowed. This was done by the AO considering the clarificatory amendment made by the Parliament vide Finance Act, 2013 by way of insertion of Explanation to section

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

36(1)(vii). Thus, the excess deduction of Rs.488,11,61,785/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 minus Rs.207,09,87,602/-) was disallowed. This was done by the AO considering the clarificatory amendment made by the Parliament vide Finance Act, 2013 by way of insertion of Explanation to section

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

36(1)(vii). Thus, the excess deduction of Rs.488,11,61,785/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 minus Rs.207,09,87,602/-) was disallowed. This was done by the AO considering the clarificatory amendment made by the Parliament vide Finance Act, 2013 by way of insertion of Explanation to section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

36(1)(vii). Thus, the excess deduction of Rs.488,11,61,785/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 minus Rs.207,09,87,602/-) was disallowed. This was done by the AO considering the clarificatory amendment made by the Parliament vide Finance Act, 2013 by way of insertion of Explanation to section

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1581/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1582/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1583/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1199/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Vs Addl. Cit, Central Accounts Office, Plot No. 5, Range-13 (Present Range-19) Sector-32, Institutional Area, New Delhi Gurgaon-122001 Dcit/Acit, Circle-19(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0191M

36(1)(vii). Thus, the excess deduction of Rs.488,11,61,785/- (Rs.695,21,49,387 minus Rs.207,09,87,602/-) was disallowed. This was done by the AO considering the clarificatory amendment made by the Parliament vide Finance Act, 2013 by way of insertion of Explanation to section

M/S. LUCKY EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

36(l)(vii)/37(l). It was noted that impugned moneys were advanced by assessee so as to boost his career, thus, moneys were advanced as a measure of commercial expediency. It was held that advances given by assessee was to be allowed as deduction either under section 37(1) or under section 28(i) as business loss

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SARVA UP GRAMIN BANK, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowance vide the impugned order dated August 4, 2003. 3. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that originally the assessee had filed its return of Income for the assessment year 1985-86 on September 27, 1995, wherein deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act had been claimed at Rs. 1,19,36,000 which

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

36(1)(vii), is allowable as business/trading loss under section 37(1 )/28 of the Act. The disallowance as made

M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

36(1)(vii), is allowable as business/trading loss under section 37(1 )/28 of the Act. The disallowance as made

DCIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. PRATHMA BANK, MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2012-13

section 36(1)(vii) in addition to the benefit of deduction of the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section36(1)(viia). The Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Syndicate Bank vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (2001) 78 ITD 103 (Bang) has held that - The true meaning of the clause, as indicated earlier, is that

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. PRATHMA BANK, MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4090/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Prathma Bank, Tax, Circle-1, Ramganga Vihar, Moradabad Moradabad (U.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.04.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Bareilly.

vii) provides for a deduction in the computation of taxable profits for the debt established to be a bad debt. Section 36(1)(viia) provides for a deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debt made by a Scheduled Bank or Non- Scheduled Bank in relation to advances made by its rural branches

NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act to the assessee for respective years as well as in AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 of allowability of loss on securities. . 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 3704/Del/2010:- “1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim amounting

THE KANGRA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

disallowed the bad debts written off of Rs. 20,24,842/- on the ground that the amount of deduction claimed and allowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 38,00,870/- is more than the bad debts claimed and also on the ground that the bad debts claimed

THE KANGRA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

disallowed the bad debts written off of Rs. 20,24,842/- on the ground that the amount of deduction claimed and allowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 38,00,870/- is more than the bad debts claimed and also on the ground that the bad debts claimed

IFCI LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

36(1)(vii). We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for computation of disallowance accordingly after allowing the assessee an opportunity to place relevant facts.” 10. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee/appellant submitted before us that the AO had discussed the issue of disallowance of `50 Crores under Section

IFCI LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed

36(1)(vii). We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for computation of disallowance accordingly after allowing the assessee an opportunity to place relevant facts.” 10. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee/appellant submitted before us that the AO had discussed the issue of disallowance of `50 Crores under Section