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

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

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/-.\n\n8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC following

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 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

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

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