https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761647 ITAT Chennai held that revision u/s 263 was partially justified. Regarding MAT credit verification, the tribunal found no error in the original assessment order but agreed verification could be done during appeal effect proceedings. For rural branch deduction u/s 36(1)(viia), ITAT allowed deduction for 10 branches meeting rural criteria but disallowed Rs. 1,25,13,362 for Pongalur branch exceeding population limits. On section 14A disallowance, ITAT reversed PCIT's direction, following SC precedent in South Indian Bank Ltd that no disallowance applies when investments are treated as stock-in-trade by banks. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761647 ITAT Chennai held that revision u/s 263 was partially justified. Regarding MAT credit verification, the tribunal found no error in the original assessment order but agreed verification could be done during appeal effect proceedings. For rural branch deduction u/s 36(1)(viia), ITAT allowed deduction for 10 branches meeting rural criteria but disallowed Rs. 1,25,13,362 for Pongalur branch exceeding population limits. On section 14A disallowance, ITAT reversed PCIT's direction, following SC precedent in South Indian Bank Ltd that no disallowance applies when investments are treated as stock-in-trade by banks. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761647