SANT SOPANKAKA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SASWAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

disallowance of Rs.35,22,475/- (being 7.50% of the total income) u/s 36(1)(viia) of the ITA, 1961 made by learned DCIT, Circle 5, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the learned AO). 2. The learned CIT(A)-2 and the learned AO erred in law and on facts in holding that, provision of section

THE DEOLA MERCHANTS CO-OP. BANK LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1560 & 1561/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Deola Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Bhagyodaya, At Post – Deola, Tal-Deola, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Nashik – 423102 …. Pan: Aaaat4787E Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 1, Nashik

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to Rs.1,90,36,000/- only and disallowed the balance on the ground

THE DEOLA MERCHANTS CO-OP. BANK LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1560 & 1561/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Deola Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Bhagyodaya, At Post – Deola, Tal-Deola, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Nashik – 423102 …. Pan: Aaaat4787E Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 1, Nashik

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to Rs.1,90,36,000/- only and disallowed the balance on the ground

SHANKAR NAGRI SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2950/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shankar Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd., C/O Sharad Shah & Co. Chartered Accountants, Gokulnagar-B, 1184/4, Fergusson College Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. Pan: Aadts8454K Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 3, Nanded

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. The Ld A.O. erred in disallowing (Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming) deduction u/s 36(1)(viia

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

SAMARTHA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 36(1)(viia) and therefore even the provision made against standard assets as per the mandate of RBI should be considered as part and parcel of the provision for bad and doubtful debts for the purposes of computing deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 7] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

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

section to the extent of Rs.102.36 crores. The similar claimed was made by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal upheld the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and has restricted the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) to the extent of provision made. 4.2 We have heard the submissions made

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

section to the extent of Rs.102.36 crores. The similar claimed was made by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal upheld the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and has restricted the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) to the extent of provision made. 4.2 We have heard the submissions made

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

section to the extent of Rs.102.36 crores. The similar claimed was made by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal upheld the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and has restricted the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) to the extent of provision made. 4.2 We have heard the submissions made

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

section to the extent of Rs.102.36 crores. The similar claimed was made by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal upheld the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and has restricted the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) to the extent of provision made. 4.2 We have heard the submissions made

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

THE ISLAMPUR URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD.,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The only dispute in appeal by the assessee is the quantum of deduction available to the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. It is an admitted position that the assessee

SADHANA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

disallowance of Rs.7,65,767/- u/s 14A of the ITA, 1961 without appreciating that all the investments were out of own funds only and hence provisions of section 14A are not applicable. 3. Grounds 1 and 2 relates to the applicability of interpretation of provisions of section 36(1)(viia

SADHANA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

disallowance of Rs.7,65,767/- u/s 14A of the ITA, 1961 without appreciating that all the investments were out of own funds only and hence provisions of section 14A are not applicable. 3. Grounds 1 and 2 relates to the applicability of interpretation of provisions of section 36(1)(viia

SADHANA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1204 To 1206/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14 Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd., Shivam Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan: Aabas2204G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 14, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri S.P. Walimbe

disallowance of Rs.7,65,767/- u/s 14A of the ITA, 1961 without appreciating that all the investments were out of own funds only and hence provisions of section 14A are not applicable. 3. Grounds 1 and 2 relates to the applicability of interpretation of provisions of section 36(1)(viia