TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee co-operative bank was entitled to deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the second limb relating to aggregate average advances made by rural branches, and whether the disallowance required fresh examination.
Analysis: The provision at issue was examined in the context of the Finance Act, 2007 amendment extending section 36(1)(viia) benefits to eligible co-operative banks with effect from 1 April 2007. It was noted that the first limb allows deduction up to 7.5% of total income and the second limb permits deduction up to 10% of the aggregate average advances made by rural branches, but the corresponding Explanation defining rural branches did not expressly incorporate co-operative banks. The statutory scheme, the Notes on Clauses and the Memorandum to the Finance Act, 2007 were considered, and the interpretation adopted by the coordinate bench in the assessee's earlier case was not accepted without further factual verification. The calculation of rural advances and the applicability of the second limb were found to require fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer after giving opportunity to the assessee.
Conclusion: The disallowance was not finally affirmed or deleted on merits, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
