9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In making the computation, there can be no consideration of the provision for bad debts for rural branches as granted under clause (viia) of Section 36(1). Hence, the first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Determination of non-rural branches - provision for bad debts u/s 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- On the second question, the issue stands covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 860 - KERALA HIGH COURT] 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 basis of the population. This Court specifically noticed the anomaly insofar as even wards i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ches 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) In determining the provision for bad debts under Section 36(1)(viia), has the nonrural branches to be determined on the basis of a revenue village and the population thereat ? III) Whether the interest accrued on securities, which are not yet matured has to be assessed as income for the year ? 2. On the first question the issue has to be 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 com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar 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 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. 5. The third question also stands covered in 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 als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
