ACIT, KHANDWA vs. M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK, , KHARGONE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit M/S. Jila Sahakari Khandwa Kendriya Bank, बनाम/ Khandwa Raod, Khargone Vs. M.P. (Appellant /Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaatj 0529 K Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain & Milind Wadhwani, Ars Date Of Hearing 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

section 36(1)(viia) allows deduction upto a certain limit, the first limb of which is “7.50% of the eligible income”, the AO made a mathematical working of such 7.50% limit at Rs. 1,46,29,871/-; allowed deduction to that extent; and disallowed

ACIT, KHANDWA vs. M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK, , KHARGONE

Accordingly Ld. AO made a mathematical working of 20% limit at Rs. 5,54,05,042/-; finally disallowed excess deduction of Rs

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit M/S. Jila Sahakari Khandwa Kendriya Bank, बनाम/ Khandwa Road, Khargone Vs. (Appellant /Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaatj 0529 K Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain & Milind Wadhwani, Ars Date Of Hearing 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

section 36(1)(viia) and framed a view that “Provision for NPA” is a provision for bad-debt and therefore allowable as deduction; but “Provision for standard assets” is not a provision for bad-debt and therefore not allowable. Finally, Ld. AO disallowed

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 271(1)(c)." 5.12 Same view has been taken by the ITAT Indore wherein on similar facts regarding the claim of deduction ix] s 36(1)(viia) cancellation of penalty was upheld in the case of ACIT v / s Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in dated 06.10.2015. 5.13 In view of the above discussion the levy of penalty

M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 271(1)(c)." 5.12 Same view has been taken by the ITAT Indore wherein on similar facts regarding the claim of deduction ix] s 36(1)(viia) cancellation of penalty was upheld in the case of ACIT v / s Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in dated 06.10.2015. 5.13 In view of the above discussion the levy of penalty

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MY,,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), DHAR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Jilasahakarikendriya Dcit-1(1) बनाम/ Bank Maryadit, Indore Dhar Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaaj 0183 E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, &Pankajmogra, Ars Revenue By Shriashishporwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

disallowed by lower authorities. 5. The legal provisions as well as facts qua this addition can be fit in a narrow compass. On legal provisions, both sides agree that the assessee being a co-operative bank, is eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) on account of “Provision for bad-debt” as well as u/s 36(1)(vii) on account

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, JHABUA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2015-16 Ito, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Dhar Maryadit, बनाम/ Jhabua Vs. (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aacfj4887C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Shri Harsh Choukse, Ar Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026

1)(viia) and partly upheld. Further, the CIT(A) upheld disallowance of section 80P fully. (v) Now, the revenue is aggrieved by part-relief granted by CIT(A) in the matter of disallowance u/s 36

M/S VIKRAMADITYA NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. THE ACIT, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blea.Y. 2013-14

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act the assessee can claim provision for bad and doubtful debts and not for the contingency for standard assets and accordingly disallowed

M/S NARMADA JHABUA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 3(1),INDORE, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of claim u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act. It is contended in Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank the grounds of appeal that the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) even if no reserve is created. We however find that the same issue stands decided against the assessee’s appeal by the Co-ordinate

CIT-2, BHOPAL vs. SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, RAISEN

In the result, both the appeals of revenue in case of Sewa

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Bharkacha Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aafts5908N Assessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Maryadit, Bhaisaya Badi Vs. Raisen (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaak9049E

36(1)(viia) was not available to assessee (Being Primary agricultural credit society). Even the return for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 were accepted. The assessee in a bonafide belief and relying on the audit report, could not add back the Provisions for bad & doubtful 5 Sewa & Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti Yaryadit ITANo.857/Ind/2018 & ITANo.858/Ind/2018 debt. Reliance is placed

CIT-2, BHOPAL vs. KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, RAISEN

In the result, both the appeals of revenue in case of Sewa

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Bharkacha Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aafts5908N Assessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Maryadit, Bhaisaya Badi Vs. Raisen (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaak9049E

36(1)(viia) was not available to assessee (Being Primary agricultural credit society). Even the return for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 were accepted. The assessee in a bonafide belief and relying on the audit report, could not add back the Provisions for bad & doubtful 5 Sewa & Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti Yaryadit ITANo.857/Ind/2018 & ITANo.858/Ind/2018 debt. Reliance is placed

MADHYA PRADESH COUNSALTANCY ORGANISATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S M.P. Consultancy Acit-2(1) बनाम/ Organization Ltd., Bhopal Vs. Block -2, 3Rd Floor Paryawas Bhawan, Arera Hills Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0090J Appellant By Shri M.K. Sharma, Ca Revenue By Smt. Vineeta Dube, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 30.03.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 23.-2.2016 By Acit- 2(1), Bhopal.

viia) as per Rs.13,04,862/- para 3.6 Add: Income from Punjab National Bank not Rs.18,35,393/- offered to tax as per para 4.5 Assessed Total Income (Rounded off) Rs.1,17,71,160/- 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

M/S JILA SAHKARI KRISHI AUR GRAMIN VIKAS BANK MYDT.,HOSHAGABAD vs. THE ACIT RANGE, ITARSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act which allowed certain categories of the assessees engaged in banking business for making provisions for bad and doubtful debts and standard assets. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset of the hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged disallowances

JAHRNESHWAR NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Jharneshwar Nagrik Acit-2(1) Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaaj9690E Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gour, Ar Revenue By Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2020

section 41 of the Act. 1 d). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.1 ,29,56,000/- made by the AO under s.41(1)(a) of the Act without considering and appreciating the material fact that no specific deduction was allowed

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

1 proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 22. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice submitting as follows:- The assessee is earning income from Job work of engineering/vehicle parts in the name of his proprietary concern

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

1 proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 22. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice submitting as follows:- The assessee is earning income from Job work of engineering/vehicle parts in the name of his proprietary concern

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

1 proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 22. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice submitting as follows:- The assessee is earning income from Job work of engineering/vehicle parts in the name of his proprietary concern

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

1 proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 22. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice submitting as follows:- The assessee is earning income from Job work of engineering/vehicle parts in the name of his proprietary concern

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

1 proceed to invoke the powers u/s 263 and pass an appropriate order, I deem it proper to give you an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 22. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice submitting as follows:- The assessee is earning income from Job work of engineering/vehicle parts in the name of his proprietary concern