THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowed Rs.17,38,222 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering the available materials on record as well as provisions of the Act"?" 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants- revenue has fairly submitted before this court that so far as substantial question Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, he is not pressing for the same. 5. Learned counsel

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

disallowed Rs.17,38,222 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering the available materials on record as well as provisions of the Act"?" 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants- revenue has fairly submitted before this court that so far as substantial question Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, he is not pressing for the same. 5. Learned counsel

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

disallowances were mainly in respect of Provisions for NPA's, RO & SAO's cost, accrued interest on NPA's, addition on account of Bank Reconciliation Provisions. Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. As such Revenue and Assessee both preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has partly allowed both

STATE BANK OF MYSORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH

viia). Since there is no finding on this fact whether any part of the amount recovered by the assessee pertains to the claim allowed in the earlier year(s) under section 36(1)(vii) and therefore the same has to be considered for disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

36(1)(viia) of the Act, the subsequent recoveries are not taxable under Section 41(1) or Section 41(4) of the Act. It was further held that disallowance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.PRAGATHI GRAMINA BANK

In the result, appeal stands rejected

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

disallowing the deduction of excess provision of bad and doubtful debts was challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (for short, ‘CIT(A)’) and the same came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 3. Learned counsel Sri.Y.V. Raviraj

THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ANR vs. THE BIJAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL

Bench: R.DEVDAS,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of such interest paid to the members without TDS, was liable to be made as per the provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act. 4. Both the learned counsel at Bar fairly submitted that the said issue is no longer res-integra in view of the CBTD Circular No.19/2015 holding that such Co-operative Banks

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

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

disallowances made under section 36(1) (viia) of the Act by the assessing authority by placing reliance on its earlier

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. CORPORATION BANK

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

disallowances made under Section 36(1) (viia) and also (viii) by relying upon its earlier orders passed for the assessment

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. THE VYSYA BANK LTD,

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had also claimed the aforesaid amount as expenditure for computerization of its 125 branches which were networked with a centralized processing solution. The assessee claimed the aforesaid expenditure as revenue expenditure The Assessing Officer capitalized the aforesaid expenditure and allowed depreciation at the rate of 12.5%. The Assessing Officer added

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had also claimed the aforesaid amount as expenditure for computerization of its 125 branches which were networked with a centralized processing solution. The assessee claimed the aforesaid expenditure as revenue expenditure The Assessing Officer capitalized the aforesaid expenditure and allowed depreciation at the rate of 12.5%. The Assessing Officer added

THE RADDI SAHAKAR BANK NIYAMIT vs. ADDITIONAL/ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OFM INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice M.I.Arun

disallowance of - 4 - W.P. No.103096 of 2022 Rs.3,76,000/- being excess claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia

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

disallowances made under section 36(1) (viia) of the Act by the assessing authority by placing reliance on its earlier