2021 (3) TMI 1016

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Davanagere. 2. The statement of facts as stated by the appellants in the Memorandum of Income Tax Appeal reflects that the assessee claims to be a Co-operative Bank and filed their return of income for year under consideration. Assessment order came to be passed in the case of assessee under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act). In the order passed, the assessing authority made additions. The assessing authority calculated the interest on loans and advances (including NPA) following mercantile system of accounting and interest offered in the P/L following cash system of accounting were reduced and the difference amount was added to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovision dealing with the method of accounting for determining income of particular year and the decision in the case of UCO Bank V/s.CIT (reported in 237 ITR page 889), the Supreme court has not given findings regarding this issue and as such the Tribunal is not right in relying on this ruling of Apex Court"? 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law upholding the provision made by assessee with regard to Audit Cost even when the provisions of Section 43B, the deductions in respect of any sum payable by the assessee by way of duty, cess or fees by whatsoever name called, shall be given only on actual payment and in the instant case, only the provision for payment of audit cost made and no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....question of law open. The aforesaid aspect of the matter could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. For the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed by this court in I.T.A.No.471/2013, the first substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. With regard to the second substantial question of law, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee had claimed the benefit under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and the assessee has to first set off the bad debt written off against the provision made under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. It is further submitted that if actual write off is in excess of provision made under Section 36(1)(viia) of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....89 SC, 'CIT VS. CANFIN HOMES LTD.', 347 ITR 382 (KAR), CIT VS. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK IN ITA NO.471/2013 (KAR), CIT VIS THE URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK IN SLP NO.1066/2015 (SC) and 'UCO BANK VS. CIT', 360 ITR 567 (KOL). 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee had debited Rs. 1.5 Crores as provision for non performing asset but in the income computation sheet the same has not been added. The assessee was given an opportunity to explain why non performing asset provision has not added back to the total income, in the income computation sheet and again deduction 7.5% under Section 36....