JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

disallowance of Rs.5584,57,541/- under section 36(1)(vii) and\nsection 36(1) (viia) (c) of the Act i.e., deductions

E-ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE( NOW AMALGAMATED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK- PNB),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-07, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 E-Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Acit, (Now Amalgamated With Special Range-07 Punjab National Bank-Pnb) New Delhi. Punjab National Bank, Finance Division Plot No. 4, Sector Dwarka, New Delhi- 110 075 Pan Aaaco0191M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 2153.02 crores under section 36(1)(vii) by ignoring first proviso as well as clarificatory provision of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii)?” 7. The Ld. AR submitted that before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Revenue did not dispute the fact that the aforesaid proposed question of law was covered by the decision rendered

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

disallowed.” 42. However, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) for a sum of Rs.315.00 crores in respect of bad debts written off identified separately in the profit & loss account other than those provisions which were claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). The AO has mentioned in his order that the assessee has provided complete details

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

disallowed.” 42. However, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) for a sum of Rs.315.00 crores in respect of bad debts written off identified separately in the profit & loss account other than those provisions which were claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). The AO has mentioned in his order that the assessee has provided complete details

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

disallowed.” 42. However, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) for a sum of Rs.315.00 crores in respect of bad debts written off identified separately in the profit & loss account other than those provisions which were claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). The AO has mentioned in his order that the assessee has provided complete details

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

disallowed.” 42. However, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) for a sum of Rs.315.00 crores in respect of bad debts written off identified separately in the profit & loss account other than those provisions which were claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). The AO has mentioned in his order that the assessee has provided complete details

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

disallowed.” 42. However, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) for a sum of Rs.315.00 crores in respect of bad debts written off identified separately in the profit & loss account other than those provisions which were claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). The AO has mentioned in his order that the assessee has provided complete details

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

disallowed.” 42. However, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) for a sum of Rs.315.00 crores in respect of bad debts written off identified separately in the profit & loss account other than those provisions which were claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). The AO has mentioned in his order that the assessee has provided complete details

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

disallowed.” 42. However, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) for a sum of Rs.315.00 crores in respect of bad debts written off identified separately in the profit & loss account other than those provisions which were claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). The AO has mentioned in his order that the assessee has provided complete details

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

section 36(1) (viia) in a restrictive manner. In view of the above submissions and provisions of the law, the bank has rightly claimed the deduction of Rs 16,06,72,3551- uls 36(1) (viia). It is also relevant to state that there has been no disallowance

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

disallowed by the AO. However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs JCIT 320 ITR 577 (supra) wherein it has been held as under: “Section 36(1)(viia

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.

36(1)(viia) and Section 43D of the Act. Therefore, the AO was justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee

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)

viia) and 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of Rs. 350428356/-. The claim was based on the belief that the main object of the assessee is to promote Housing Finance Companies. However, the ld Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee for the following reasons:- “9. I have carefully considered

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 assessee bank is an urban cooperative bank which enjoyed the 7.50% of the total income under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia

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 assessee bank is an urban cooperative bank which enjoyed the 7.50% of the total income under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia

IFCI LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed

disallowed deduction for bad debts written off amounting to `18,624.61 lacs, inter alia, on the following grounds: (a) The assessee could not claim deduction for both the amount of provision of bad and doubtful debts created during the relevant previous year under Section 36(1)(viia

IFCI LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed

disallowed deduction for bad debts written off amounting to `18,624.61 lacs, inter alia, on the following grounds: (a) The assessee could not claim deduction for both the amount of provision of bad and doubtful debts created during the relevant previous year under Section 36(1)(viia

IFCI LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

disallowed deduction for bad debts written off amounting to `18,624.61 lacs, inter alia, on the following grounds: (a) The assessee could not claim deduction for both the amount of provision of bad and doubtful debts created during the relevant previous year under Section 36(1)(viia