ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance of Rs.2,31,42,83,800/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) by restricting the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 36(1)(viia

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance under section 14A to 5% of the exempt income. Grounds No. 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are thus partly allowed. 30. As regards the issue involved in Ground No. 6 relating to the reduction of assessee’s claim for bad debts by a sum of Rs.86,23,118/- being provision created under section 36(1)(viia

INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1416/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Industrial Investment Bank Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Kolkata, Of India Limited, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 19, Netaji Subhas Road, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci 0324 D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya,Fca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.K.Kureel, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: ` The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2004-2005, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.343/08-09/Cit(A)-Vi/Cir-6/Kol, Dated 29.04.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 17.11.2006. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Public Sector Undertaking Bank & Its Operations Are Solely In The Segment Of Non-Banking Financial Intermediation Services. The Assessee Being A Financial Institution, Its Activities Are Subject To Guidelines Issued By The Reserve Bank Of India For Banking Companies. During The Financial Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Company Written Off A Sum Of Rs.1,42,48,266/- On Account Of Debts As Irrecoverable. The Assessee Is An Organization To Which The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Viia) Is Applicable.

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, where 10% provision is allowed, in any of two consecutive assessment years commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2003 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2005. The Ld. AR for the assessee also submitted before us that merely because the assessee has not claimed in its return

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

DISALLOWANCE OF CENVAT CREDIT WRITTEN OFF Ground Nos. 5(a) to 5(d) of Assessee Appeal The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee claimed deduction on account of write off of unavailed service tax credit amounting to Rs 46 crores. The assessee submitted that as per the provisions of service tax laws prevailing in the financial year

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, (IT) - 2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

DISALLOWANCE OF CENVAT CREDIT WRITTEN OFF Ground Nos. 5(a) to 5(d) of Assessee Appeal The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee claimed deduction on account of write off of unavailed service tax credit amounting to Rs 46 crores. The assessee submitted that as per the provisions of service tax laws prevailing in the financial year

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(viia) of the Act by applying Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 11. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 relate to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section

WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

section has been accepted by the Department consistently. Keeping in view, the above discussion, we find substance in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

ITA No.1329/K/08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS CLAIMED UNDER SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(viia) OF THE ACT – Rs. 84,34,52,800/- Ground

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 36(1 )(viia) to RS.268,76,31 ,809, being the amount of provision made in the accounts and disallowing

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. ALLAHABAD BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :1998-99

disallowance on the short ground that the assessee has failed to provide the details in respect to the provisions written back with regard to the conversion of non-performing assets into performing assets in the year under consideration. The assessee has claimed the deduction in the earlier years under the provisions of section 36(1)(viia

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 36(1)(viia)(c) is required to be disallowed. The working for the eligible amount of deduction u/s 36

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 36(1)(viia)(c) is required to be disallowed. The working for the eligible amount of deduction u/s 36

DCIT, CIRCLE -6 KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

section 36(1)(viia)(c) is required to be disallowed. The working for the eligible amount of deduction u/s 36

DCIT, CIR-2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. M/S UTTAR BANGA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, COOCHBIHAR

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2010-11

disallowance made by the AO in respect of provision created u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. As per the AO the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act in respect of fresh rural advance made during the year. However, Ld. ITA No.576/Kol/2015 & CO No 73/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 DCIT

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 6, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred in law and not justified by upholding the addition of Audit Fees Rs.2,55,400/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 debited in profit & loss account. 9. THAT on the facts

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. THAT on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred in law and not justified by upholding the addition of Audit Fees Rs.2,55,400/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 debited in profit & loss account. 9. THAT on the facts

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

disallowance for provision for bad & doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 162,56,86,471/- on the ground that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

disallowance for provision for bad & doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 162,56,86,471/- on the ground that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia