TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Mumbai allows deduction for provision of standard assets under section 36(1)(viia)</h1> <h3>Model Co-op Bank Ltd Versus DCIT-1 (3) (2)</h3> Model Co-op Bank Ltd Versus DCIT-1 (3) (2) - TMI Issues:- Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) for provision of standard assets as per RBI circular- Consideration of evidence submitted on recordAnalysis:1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 36(1)(viia):- The appeal involved a dispute regarding the disallowance of a deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) for provision of standard assets as per the RBI circular. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the provision for doubtful debts created by the assessee was only Rs.60,00,000, leading to the disallowance of the excess claim of deduction amounting to Rs.8,86,815. The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai (CIT(A)) upheld the disallowance in the appeal.- The assessee argued that section 36(1)(viia) does not differentiate between provision on bad assets and provision on standard assets. The deduction is allowed for anticipated default on loans and advances, including standard assets. The assessee contended that the provision made for standard assets is part of the provision of doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- The assessee relied on various tribunal decisions, including cases like Nawanshahr Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Nagpur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Vellore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., and Punjab Gramin Bank, to support their argument that the nomenclature of provisions should not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction under section 36(1)(viia).- The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred to the decisions in Nawanshahr Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Punjab Gramin Bank, emphasizing that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) is allowed for provisions for bad and doubtful debts without differentiating between bad assets and standard assets. Following the precedent set by the tribunal, the ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted the disallowance made by the AO.2. Consideration of Evidence Submitted:- The assessee also raised a ground stating that the CIT(A) did not consider the evidence submitted on record. However, the judgment primarily focused on the disallowance of the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and the interpretation of provisions related to bad and doubtful debts, as well as standard assets.- The ITAT's decision to allow the appeal was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions and the application of precedent set by previous tribunal decisions. The issue of evidence consideration, while mentioned in the grounds of appeal, did not play a significant role in the final judgment.In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, overturning the disallowance of the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) for provision of standard assets. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of provisions related to bad and doubtful debts, the treatment of standard assets, and the reliance on tribunal decisions to support the assessee's claim for the deduction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
