Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)
Sant Sopankaka Sahakari Bank Ltd., ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 20 December, 2019 cites

The George Town Co-Operative Bank ... vs Acit Corporate Circle 4(1) , Chennai on 25 September, 2019

20. Then, reference was made to the decision of jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in The Kodungallur Town Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), judgment dated 03.04.2014 and it was held that invoking of jurisdiction by the Commissioner was held to be not justified, relying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., which is dated 17.02.2012.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thrissur on 17 February, 2012

19. The Cochin Bench of Tribunal in a subsequent decision relating to assessment year 2010-11 in the case of Kodungallur Town Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) again decided the aforesaid issue of claim of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, especially in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) relied upon by the Commissioner while invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the issue whether the deduction was allowable to scheduled banks under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in respect of bad debts written off and had held that the same shall be limited to the extent the said debts credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under clause (viia). It was further observed by the Tribunal that the assessments in the said case related to assessment year 2002-03 and prior years and the Apex Court had considered the law with reference to the fact situation; whereas the assessee before them was co-operative bank, which was included in the category of beneficiaries under clause (viia) by the 8 Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.04.2007. The Tribunal further goes on to hold that the deduction provided in the first part of clause (viia)(a) of 7.5% of total income, either to enjoyed by the assessee since inclusion of co-operative banks within ambit of clause (viia)(a) by the Finance Act, 2007 is unconcerned with the advances made by rural branches of banks. Further, referring to para 27 of the judgment of Apex Court, the Tribunal held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 285 - S Kumar - Full Document

Lokmangal Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,, Solapur vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 30 November, 2018

8. The issue arising in the present appeal is identical to the issue before the Tribunal in Bhagini Nivedita Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim the aforesaid deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are thus, allowed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Smt. Bandana Gogoi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 9 January, 2007

The Tribunal decided the issue in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in Smt. Bandana Gogoi Vs. CIT & Anr. (2007) 289 ITR 28 (Gau) in the absence of any other decision of any High Court in other State. In view of the above said position of law, we are departing from the view taken by Pune Bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case relating to assessment year 2010-11, wherein the order is dated 29.05.2015 but decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on the issue is dated 03.04.2014 was neither relied upon nor brought to the knowledge of Tribunal and the issue was decided against assessee.
Gauhati High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 39 - D Biswas - Full Document
1   2 Next