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), as there is an actual write off by the assessee in his books.” 68. Further, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in [2012] 204 Taxman 305 has taken similar view and has held as under: ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 27 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank

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), as there is an actual write off by the assessee in his books.” 68. Further, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in [2012] 204 Taxman 305 has taken similar view and has held as under: ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 27 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank

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), as there is an actual write off by the assessee in his books.” 68. Further, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in [2012] 204 Taxman 305 has taken similar view and has held as under: ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 27 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank

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), as there is an actual write off by the assessee in his books.” 68. Further, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in [2012] 204 Taxman 305 has taken similar view and has held as under: ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 27 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank

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), as there is an actual write off by the assessee in his books.” 68. Further, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in [2012] 204 Taxman 305 has taken similar view and has held as under: ITA No.1581 & Ors./Del/2017 27 ITA No. 1199 & Ors./Del/2018 Oriental Bank

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

68 – 73 of PB). It is to be noted that bank is not claiming the deduction u/s 36(1) (vii) separately in respect of bad debts and adjusting the such bad debts with the provision claimed u/s 36(1) (viia) so as to avoid the claim of double 30 M/s Sarva UP Gramin Bank deduction in this regard. Accordingly, bank

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

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.

68,000/-, net income 3 Prathma Bank as “any other income” had been disclosed at Rs.16,61,89,000/- after excluding profit/sales of fixed assets (-) Rs.1,22,000/-. It was also noticed that the provision for bad and doubtful debt had been shown at Rs.5,45,49,000/-, other provisions had been claimed at Rs.23

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

36. Strictly without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is further pertinent to note that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the assessing officer without following the binding directions of the DRP as is explained hereunder: (a) The DRP had held that draft assessment order under section 144C(1) was passed in breach of the provisions of 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.

68,000/-. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue holding that the claim of the assessee was to be allowed u/s 37(1) r.w. section 28(1) instead of section 36(1)(vii

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68. The ld. DCIT stated in the impugned Remand Report that the aggregate amount of Rs.7,39,00,401/- written off by the appellant was disallowed in accordance with provisions of section 36(1)(vii

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, SPL. RANGE-07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

36(1)(vii), as there is an actual write off by the assessee in his books.” 68. Further, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in [2012] 204 Taxman 305 has taken similar view and has held as under: “In the instant case, the debt is an amount receivable by the assessee

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

36. Royalty is given a specific meaning in Explanation 2 which has already been extracted above. The Tribunal is also in agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) and the reasons which led to taking this view by the Tribunal have also been stated above. 2011:DHC:566-DB 37. The basic submission of Mr. Ganesh was that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MANUPATRA INFORMATION SOLUTION

The appeal is disposed of declaring the law as above and setting aside

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

vii) Clause (i) embraces all works. RFA(OS) No.81/2016 Page 25 of 58 (viii) Clause (j) embraces literary, dramatic, musical and cinematographic works. (ix) Clause (k) embraces sound recordings. (x) Clause (l) embraces literary, dramatic and musical work. (xi) Clause (m) embraces a literary work being an article, (xii) Clause (n) embraces all works. (xiii) Clause (o) embraces literary work

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 of the Act.(Page 28 – CIT(A)’s order) Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) • CIT V Orrisa Corporatiosn Pvt Ltd Pvt Ltd [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119(Delhi)] • CIT V Paras Cotton

ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI vs. JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 of the Act.(Page 28 – CIT(A)’s order) Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) • CIT V Orrisa Corporatiosn Pvt Ltd Pvt Ltd [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119(Delhi)] • CIT V Paras Cotton

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 of the Act.(Page 28 – CIT(A)’s order) Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) • CIT V Orrisa Corporatiosn Pvt Ltd Pvt Ltd [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119(Delhi)] • CIT V Paras Cotton

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANGEL CEMENT PVT. LTD.,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 68 of the Act.(Page 28 – CIT(A)’s order) Case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) • CIT V Lovely Exports [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) • CIT V Orrisa Corporatiosn Pvt Ltd Pvt Ltd [(1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)] • CIT V Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd [(2011) 333 ITR 119(Delhi)] • CIT V Paras Cotton