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

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

section 36(1)(viia)(a) disallowance(s) of Rs.45,70,370/- A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2012-13 and restricting the same

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

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

section 36(1)(viia)(a) disallowance(s) of Rs.45,70,370/- A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2012-13 and restricting the same

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

36(1)(viia) is allowable for provision for standard assets which is basically in the nature of bad & doubtful debts. 6.2 Before we discuss the case further, we will like to mentions the relevant case laws on this issue. 6.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200(SC) observed as under

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.564/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, The Principal 3Rd Floor, Panchsil Tech Park, V Commissioner Of Income Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. S Tax-3, Pune. Pan: Aadcb6018P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Ms.Vasanti B.Patel – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 On 14.03.2023. In This Case, Assessment Order Was Passed On 26.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging The Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1.1. The Learned Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A]

36(1)(viia) is allowable for provision for standard assets which is basically in the nature of bad & doubtful debts. 6.2 Before we discuss the case further, we will like to mentions the relevant case laws on this issue. 6.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200(SC) observed as under

COL R D NIKAM SAINIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.794/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Col R D Nikam Sainiksahakari The Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Satara Circle, Chh. Shivaji Maharaj Circle, Satara. Powai Naka, Satara – 415001. Pan: Aabas 2355 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Renuka Ghatge – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 28.02.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Form Number 36 Of Appeal Memo: “1. The Learned Assessing Office Is Not Justified In Adding The Liabilities & Capital Receipts Credited To General Reserve Totaling To Rs.6,73,807/- To The Total Income & Addition Should Be Deleted.

36(1)(viia) of the Act. The AO disallowed it on the ground that these does not carry more than normal risk attached to the business and such asset is not NPA. ITA No.794/PUN/2019for A.Y. 2012-13 Col R D Nikam Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd., [A] 9.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has merely reproduced the relevant part of the assessment order

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "143(3)", "36(1)(viia)", "14A", "Rule 8D", "115JB", "251(1)(a)", "80G", "271(1)(c)" ], "issues": "Whether various disallowances

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 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

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

NEELKANTH CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SOLAPUR,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance excess claim of Rs.2,21,823 u/s.36(1)(viia) of the act. In this regard, the contention of the AO in the assessment order, submissions of the appellant during appellate proceedings and relevant provisions under section 36

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)

viia) introduced with effect from AY 2014-15. This heins the first year of operation of the Explanation, very less clarity was available on its applicability. 49. The claim of the assessee has been denied by the lower authorities solely based on Explanation 2 to Section 36(l)(vii) introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 01st April

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE,, RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

36(1)(viia) was disallowed by the AO on the ground that co-operative banks were entitled to claim deduction only from assessment year 2007-08 and not for years prior to assessment year 2007-08. Thus, it is a case of mere disallowance of claim under particular section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

36(1)(viia) was disallowed by the AO on the ground that co-operative banks were entitled to claim deduction only from assessment year 2007-08 and not for years prior to assessment year 2007-08. Thus, it is a case of mere disallowance of claim under particular section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

36(1)(viia) was disallowed by the AO on the ground that co-operative banks were entitled to claim deduction only from assessment year 2007-08 and not for years prior to assessment year 2007-08. Thus, it is a case of mere disallowance of claim under particular section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

36(1)(viia) was disallowed by the AO on the ground that co-operative banks were entitled to claim deduction only from assessment year 2007-08 and not for years prior to assessment year 2007-08. Thus, it is a case of mere disallowance of claim under particular section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

36(1)(viia) was disallowed by the AO on the ground that co-operative banks were entitled to claim deduction only from assessment year 2007-08 and not for years prior to assessment year 2007-08. Thus, it is a case of mere disallowance of claim under particular section

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), there is no requirement u/s 36(1)(via) that the provision should relate to rural advances. 2.3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact the entire provision made has to be considered and not the provision relating to rural advances only be considered. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed an amount of Rs.5,10,422/- out of Bad debts stating the reason that the appellant Company has not submitted the documentary evidences. The appellant Company has stated that the assessing officer made an addition of Rs.5,10,422 on account of Bad Debts stating that the appellant Company has not substantiated its claim without appreciating the facts that