M/S CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2)

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

36(1)(viia) of the Act to the extent of the provision made by the appellant when the Section provides for the allowance not - 17 - exceeding 5% of the total income and not exceeding 10% of the rural advances made by the Bank?” Substantial Question of Law No.1 11. This court, in Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited case [supra] held, when

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

depreciation has been claimed in all the assessment years? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowances made under section 36(1) (viia

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

36 (1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this section did not permit such an action?” 3. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III , vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

36(1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this Section does not permit such an action? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue by holding that the depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III , vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

36(1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this Section does not permit such an action? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue by holding that the depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III , vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

36(1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this Section does not permit such an action? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue by holding that the depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

36(1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this section did not permit such an action? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that depreciation

WAY2WEALTH BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT

36(1)(viia) of the Act when the provisions of this section did not permit such an action? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Appeals are dismissed as the questions of law do not survive for

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

depreciation has been claimed in all the assessment years? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowances made under section 36(1) (viia

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-III, vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 36(1)(vii) which doesn’t allow write off bad debts relating to urban branches and under 3 prudential write off without first setting off them against the credit balance in the Provision for Bad and doubtful Debts A/c? 1(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble tribunal were right