ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SINDHUDURG DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,, SINDHUDURG

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section itself means that the deduction is to be allowed only if a provision is made by the appellant in his books and the same is to be restricted to the ceiling mandated by see 36(l)(viia)(a) or the 1st proviso to sec 36(1)(viia) at the option of the assessee. From the facts and the entire

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SINDHUDURG DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD,, SINDHUDURG

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section itself means that the deduction is to be allowed only if a provision is made by the appellant in his books and the same is to be restricted to the ceiling mandated by see 36(l)(viia)(a) or the 1st proviso to sec 36(1)(viia) at the option of the assessee. From the facts and the entire

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

viia) is allowed to the extent of provision actually made for bad and doubtful debts in the books of account. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 of the appeal is partly allowed in line with the findings for assessment year 2010-11. 5. The ground No. 3 of the appeal is : “3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

viia) is allowed to the extent of provision actually made for bad and doubtful debts in the books of account. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 of the appeal is partly allowed in line with the findings for assessment year 2010-11. 5. The ground No. 3 of the appeal is : “3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

viia) is allowed to the extent of provision actually made for bad and doubtful debts in the books of account. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 of the appeal is partly allowed in line with the findings for assessment year 2010-11. 5. The ground No. 3 of the appeal is : “3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

viia) is allowed to the extent of provision actually made for bad and doubtful debts in the books of account. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 of the appeal is partly allowed in line with the findings for assessment year 2010-11. 5. The ground No. 3 of the appeal is : “3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

1 )(vii) and not hit by Section 36(l)(via) at all. 47. Detailed arguments on the allowability of the claim has been made by the assessee before the AO and the CIT(A). The order clearly notes the interpretation advanced by the assessee. No factual inaccuracies have been pointed out the lower authorities. It is mere case

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

viia) should not be restricted to provision made for rural advances only and therefore why the differential amount of Rs.219.32 crore working as per Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.879,11,91,472/-. 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC following

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

viia) should not be restricted to provision made for rural advances only and therefore why the differential amount of Rs.219.32 crore working as per Rule 6ABA of the Income Tax Rules. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.879,11,91,472/-. 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC following

LATUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BNAK LTD,,LATUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.165 & 628/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Latur District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Ldcc Bank Building, 7Th Floor, Yashwantrao Chavan Road, Latur-413 512. Pan : Aaaal0225H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Aurangabad. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, at the material time, provided for deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts in two parts, viz., (i) 7.5% of the total income of the assessee and (ii) 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of the assessee. The assessee computed deduction in such two parts

LATUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LIMITED,,LATUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.165 & 628/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Latur District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Ldcc Bank Building, 7Th Floor, Yashwantrao Chavan Road, Latur-413 512. Pan : Aaaal0225H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Aurangabad. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, at the material time, provided for deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts in two parts, viz., (i) 7.5% of the total income of the assessee and (ii) 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of the assessee. The assessee computed deduction in such two parts

ADARNIYA P.D. PATILSAHEB SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.801/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Adarniya P.D. Patilsaheb Sahakari Bank Ltd., 15/3/C, Mangalwar Peth, Tilak Road, Karad, Satara-415110. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaajs0147E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Satara Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Satara. Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4, Pune Dated 23.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Sustaining The Addition Made By The A. O. Of Rs. 4,40,000/- On Account Of Rejection Of Claim Of Deduction Of Provision For Depreciation On Standard Assets (Bddr). Such Provisions Are Being Annually Made As Per Mandatory Directions Of The Reserve Bank Of India Issued Under S. 45E? Of The Rbi Act, 1934. The Direction Are For To Compensate The Sudden Erosion Of The Assets Of The Bank With A View To Improve The Financial Health Of The Banks. The Claim Be Allowed To The Assessee.”

depreciation on Standard Asset’. Explaining the said claim, it was stated before the Assessing Officer that a provision is made in the account books against a contingency which might occur in future with regard to Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). It was sought to be canvassed that the provision has been made in line with the RBI guidelines and, therefore, according

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

36(1)(viia) of the Act(2) would not apply in this case, as this is not business income. The appellant has claimed before me that her claim of write off of Rs. 15,00,000 satisfies all conditions u/s 57(iii). However, this claim is simply made without demonstrating how it satisfies all conditions. I am of the view

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

36(1)(viia) of the Act(2) would not apply in this case, as this is not business income. The appellant has claimed before me that her claim of write off of Rs. 15,00,000 satisfies all conditions u/s 57(iii). However, this claim is simply made without demonstrating how it satisfies all conditions. I am of the view

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

36(1)(viia) of the Act(2) would not apply in this case, as this is not business income. The appellant has claimed before me that her claim of write off of Rs. 15,00,000 satisfies all conditions u/s 57(iii). However, this claim is simply made without demonstrating how it satisfies all conditions. I am of the view