This bench answered multiple questions of law arising from income tax appeals involving Federal Bank Ltd. and the Income Tax Commissioner concerning bad debt provisions and applicability of Section 14A.
ITAs partly allowed on third question alone; remaining ITAs rejected; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
ITA.No. 352 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 31/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 30-06-2003
APPELLANT/S:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/S:
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE-1.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.38/2011, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.1287/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
ITA.No. 38 of 2011
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 710/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-09-2010
APPELLANT/S:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, COCHIN
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/S:
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., H.O., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA-683101.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.872/2009, ITA.352/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009 & ITA.1287/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
ITA.No. 597 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 450/1999 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004
APPELLANT/S:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/S:
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
ITA.No. 755 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 246/2001 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004
APPELLANT/S:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/S:
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
| THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH |
HAVING BEEN ITA.1287/2009 |
FINA , |
LLY HEARD ON ITA.872/2009, |
|---|---|---|---|
| ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, |
ITA.769/200 | 9, | ITA.597/2009, |
| ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE THE FOLLOWING: |
COURT ON THE | SAME | DAY DELIVERED |
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
ITA.No. 769 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 491/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-08-2006
APPELLANT/S:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/S:
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD. FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
ITA.No. 815 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 459/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
APPELLANT/S:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/S:
FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.872/2009 ITA.817/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
ITA.No. 817 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 654/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-08-2006
APPELLANT/S:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/S:
THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
| THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL | HAVING BEEN | FINA | LLY HEARD ON |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH |
ITA.1287/2009 | , | ITA.872/2009, |
| ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE THE FOLLOWING: |
ITA.755/2009 COURT ON THE |
, SAME |
ITA.597/2009, DAY DELIVERED |
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
ITA.No. 872 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 26/2002 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004
APPELLANT/S:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/S:
M/S. FEDERAL BANK LTD. ALUVA.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
| THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL | HAVING BEEN | FINA | LLY HEARD ON |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.817/2009, ITA.769/2009, |
ITA.1287/2009 ITA.755/200 |
, 9, |
ITA.815/2009, ITA.597/2009, |
| ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE THE FOLLOWING: |
COURT ON THE | SAME | DAY DELIVERED |
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
ITA.No. 1287 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 1110/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 11-10-2007
APPELLANT/S:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/S:
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.872/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
10
JUDGMENT
[ITA 352/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.1287/2009 & ITA.38/2011]
Vinod Chandran, J.
Common questions arise in many of the appeals, but
not in all. In such circumstances, we would first frame the questions of law arising in the appeals and then answer it, which would lead to the disposal of the appeals as such. The questions of law re-framed are as follows:
I) Whether the bad debts written off, for nonrural branches claimed under clause (vii) of Section 36(1) has to be allowed only in excess of the provision made for rural branches under clause (viia) of Section 36(1) ? II) Whether depreciation or loss on revaluation of securities can be permitted on the basis of the market value or cost price, whichever is less, as stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India ?
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
11
III) In determining the provision for bad debts under Section 36(1)(viia), has the non-rural branches to be determined on the basis of a revenue village and the population thereat ? IV) Whether the interest accrued on securities, which are not yet matured has to be assessed as income for the year ? V) Whether the expenditure for purchase of gifts given to shareholders, who participated in the annual general meeting can be considered as a permissible business expenditure under Section 37 ? VI) Whether the Tribunal was correct in having not applied Section 14A for the assessment year 2004-05 ? VII) Whether the current investments written off can be claimed as loss for the assessment year in which it has been written off ? VIII) Whether the enhancement made by the First Appellate Authority under Section 14A could be sustained in view of the specific proviso
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
12
prohibiting enhancement before the assessment
year 2001-02 ?
IX) Whether the Tribunal was correct in having permitted the allowance of write off of an amount, which the assessee was entitled to, as dividend from another company, which was returned as income on receipt of a cheque, which subsequently got dishonoured ?
answered in favour of the assesee and against the Revenue, going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. The Assessing Officer shall verify the computation, looking into whether there is any allowance granted for provision of bad debts in nonrural branches for the previous years. In which event alone, the allowance of written off of bad debts in non-rural branches will be confined to the excess
allowed from the provision made, and deduction allowed, for non-rural branches. We make it clear that in making the computation, there can be no consideration of the
13
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
provision for bad debts for rural branches as granted
under clause (viia) of Section 36(1). Hence, the first question in I.T.A.Nos.352, 769, 872 & 815 of 2009 and I.T.A.No.38/2011 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
revaluation of securities is covered by [2003] 264 ITR 545 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and [2011] 339 ITR 606 (Ker), C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.
This Court had held that revaluation of securities can
be only on the basis of market value or cost price, whichever is lesser, as stipulated by the Reserve Bank
of India. The Tribunal's order to that extent is
upheld. Question No.II is answered in favour of the
assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.Nos.597 and 872 of 2009.
in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In
Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. , this Court had held that the
determination of non-rural branches shall be only with reference to the revenue villages and not solely on the
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
14
basis of the population. This Court specifically
noticed the anomaly insofar as even wards in
municipalities being included for identification of rural branches, when the identification is on the basis
of the population alone in wards of the local
authorities. We hence answer the third question in
favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in
I.T.A.Nos.597, 755, 769, 815, 817, 872 and 1287 of
assessee has an alternative submission insofar as the
assessee having written off the said debts and there
being no requirement to find out whether those are
rural branches or not. The contention is that the
assessee could have claimed it under clause (viia) of
Section 36(1). A similar contention was raised in
assessee's own case in a batch of cases decided on
11.12.2018 in I.T.A.No.533/2009 and connected cases. We have found that such a question does not arise in the
Revenue's appeal. The assessee had also not taken up
15
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
such a contention before any of the authorities. In
such circumstances, the assessee cannot be permitted to take that contention at this stage, especially when there is no appeal filed by the assessee. We hence refuse to look into the said contention.
favour of the assessee as per the decision of this
Court in [2008] 301 ITR 188 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Federal
Bank Ltd. The S.L.P. from the aforesaid decision numbered as S.L.P.(CC) No.17071/2008 also stands dismissed. Hence, this question is answered in favour
of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.Nos.769, 815, 817 and 1287 of 2009.
the same to be permissible allowance as business
expenditure under Section 37. S.L.P.(C) No.2070/2009
from the aforesaid judgment also stands dismissed. We, hence, answer the said question in I.T.A.No.352/2009 in
favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
16
the application of the same in the assessment year
2004-05. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2018] 401 ITR
445 (SC), C.I.T. v. ESSAR Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd., had
found that the provision can be made applicable only
from the assessment year 2007-08. Hence, for the
assessment year 2004-05, Section 14A has no application. Hence, the said question is answered in
favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.815/2009.
in I.T.A.No.411/2009 ( C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. )
followed the decision in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and [1999]
240 ITR 355 (SC), United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v.
C.I.T., WB-II, Calcutta to rule in favour of the
assessee. The question hence is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in
I.T.A.No.815/2009.
the issue raised as question No.VIII. The issue has to be answered in favour of the assessee in view of the
17
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
prohibition contained in the proviso to Section 14A, as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ESSAR
Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd. The prohibition is specific and there can be no application of Section 14A also in the assessment year 1998-99 in which the enhancement was attempted by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.872/2009.
under Section 36(1). The Tribunal allowed the same.
We do not find any infirmity in the allowance, since if at all the assessee gets the dividend in a later year,
it could be treated as income in that year. The write
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
18
off on the ground of dishonour of cheque cannot at all
be disputed and is evident from the books of accounts. We, hence, answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.872/2009.
Hence, I.T.A.Nos.597, 755, 769, 815, 817, 872, 1287
of 2009 are partly allowed on the third question alone. I.T.A.Nos.352/2009 and 38/2011 are rejected. No costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
dkr
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
19
APPENDIX OF ITA 352/2009
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE-A | COPY | OF OR | IGINAL | ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 143(3 | ) DATE | D 27/ | 3/1996 ISSUED BY THE | |
| ASSES 1993- |
SING O 94. |
FFICER | FOR THE ASST. YEAR | |
| ANNEXURE-B | COPY COMMI |
OF THE SSIONER |
ORDER OF INC |
DATED 18/11/1996 OF THE OME TAX (APPEALS). |
| ANNEXURE-C | COPY INCOM |
OF THE E TAX |
ORDER APPELLA |
DATED 30/6/2003 OF THE TE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. |
| 35, 31/CO |
36 AN CH/2000 |
D 37/C . |
OCH/2000 AND ITA NO. |
APPENDIX OF ITA 38/2011
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE-A | COPY OF 29/11/2007 |
ASSESSMENT FOR THE A |
ORDER 143(3) DATED SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE-B | COPY OF O OF THE (APPEALS). |
RDER DATED COMMISSIO |
27/3/2008 AND 9/4/2008 NER OF INCOME TAX |
| ANNEXURE-C | COPY OF T INCOME TAX IN ITA NO. |
HE ORDER APPELLATE 718/COCH/2 |
DATED 17/9/2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH 008 |
| ANNEXURE-D | COPY OF 16/1/2008 |
THE HIGH IN ITA NO. |
COURT ORDER DATED 73 OF 2008. |
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
20
APPENDIX OF ITA 597/2009
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19/3/1997 U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.
ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/8/1999 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).
ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 450/COCH/1999 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.
APPENDIX OF ITA 755/2009
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/8/2000 U/S. 143(3)R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.
ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/3/2001 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
ANNEXURE-C
COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 246/COCH/01 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
21
APPENDIX OF ITA 769/2009
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 19.2.2003 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2001-02. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO.491/(COCH)/2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2001-02.
APPENDIX OF ITA 815/2009
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 16/12/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/5/2006 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/1/2008 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO. 459/COCH/2006.
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
22
APPENDIX OF ITA 817/2009
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 23/11/2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04
ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/1/2005 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/8/2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 654/(COCH)/2005 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04.
APPENDIX OF ITA 872/2009
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2001 U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1998-99.
ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2001 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).
ANNEXURE C
COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO.26/COCH/2002 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1998-99.
ITA 352/2009 & connected cases
23
APPENDIX OF ITA 1287/2009
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER U/S. 143 (3) DATED 26.3.2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03. ANNEXURE B COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.7.2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2007 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.1110/COCH/2004.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bad debts written off for non-rural branches can be allowed only in excess of provisions made for rural branches.
Whether interest accrued on securities not yet matured has to be assessed as income for the year.
Whether expenditure for gifts given to shareholders at the annual general meeting is permissible business expenditure under Section 37.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T.Followed¶170
[2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T.
C.I.T. v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.Followed¶179
[2003] 264 ITR 545 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.
C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.Followed¶179
[2011] 339 ITR 606 (Ker), C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.
C.I.T. v. Federal Bank Ltd.Followed¶214
[2008] 301 ITR 188 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Federal Bank Ltd.
Federal Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T.Followed¶218
I.T.A.No.191/2001, Federal Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T.
C.I.T. v. ESSAR Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd.Followed¶228
[2018] 401 ITR 445 (SC), C.I.T. v. ESSAR Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd.
C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.Followed¶233
I.T.A.No.411/2009 (C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.)
United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. C.I.T., WB-II, CalcuttaFollowed¶236
[1999] 240 ITR 355 (SC), United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. C.I.T., WB-II, Calcutta
I.T.A.No.533/2009Referred¶206
I.T.A.No.533/2009
6 provisions across 4 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin
Federal Bank Ltd.
K. Vinod Chandran
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
