https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83796 The ITAT held that the assessee bank was eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) for its rural branches. The Assessing Officer had erroneously rejected the rural branch status for five branches based on district-wise data from the 2011 Census. However, the assessee appropriately relied on the final village-wise data from the 2001 Census to claim the deduction, as the 2011 Census lacked village-level population figures. The ITAT found no error in the impugned appellate order allowing the deduction and dismissed the revenue's appeal. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 Mon, 09 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83796 The ITAT held that the assessee bank was eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) for its rural branches. The Assessing Officer had erroneously rejected the rural branch status for five branches based on district-wise data from the 2011 Census. However, the assessee appropriately relied on the final village-wise data from the 2001 Census to claim the deduction, as the 2011 Census lacked village-level population figures. The ITAT found no error in the impugned appellate order allowing the deduction and dismissed the revenue's appeal. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 09 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83796