TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the assessment year 2006-07 and raises question of law from the common order of the Tribunal, which disposed of the assessee's appeal and the revenue's appeal. The questions of law raised are as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellant is entitled to deduction of the bad debts written off relating to urban branches in full and bad debts written off relating to rural branches to which clause (viia) applies to the extent of the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in provision for bad & doubtful debts made in respect of such debt under Section 36(1)(viia). 2. Whether there were any material on record to justify the finding that the Appellant is not a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced from the Loans and Advances /Debtors on the asset aside of the Balance Sheet as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank's case in 323 ITR 166". 2. The first question arises, insofar as the provision for bad debts written off. The Tribunal has remanded the matter, directing the Assessing Officer to re-consider the issue based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [(2010) 326 ITR 174(Ker)(FB)]. As of now, the Full Bench decision has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision reported in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. Commiss ioner of Income Tax, Thrissur [(2012) 3 SCC 784] holds the field. Hence, the Assessing Officer would consider the issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it is only a notional revaluation and there can be no deduction allowed for the same. We confirm the order of the lower authorities and answer the question against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. 7. The fifth question is covered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee in C.I.T. v. Essar Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd. [(2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC)]. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the machinery provision for giving effect to Section 14A of the Income Tax Act came into effect only from the assessment year 2008-09. Hence, there can be no application of Section 14A to the subject year. The question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 8. In considering the last question, we have to lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,27,15,858/-. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 45,30,81,080/- was arrived at; eligible for deduction. The provision created being Rs. 97,03,05,677/-. There was a disallowance of Rs. 51,72,24,597/-, which was added back as income. 10. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Bank is that, in fact, the assessee had written off the said amounts and hence there could be a deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(vii) itself. For the above proposition, the learned Senior Counsel relies on Vijaya Bank v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another [(2010) 323 ITR 166(SC)]. Therein the distinction between a write off and provision for bad debts was specifically noticed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to Southern T....