Bank of India v. DCIT

DCIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Blue Stat Engineering and Electronic Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 694/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) Dcit-1(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Blue Star Engineering Room No.533/579, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Blue Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Star Electro Mechanical Road, Mumbai-400020. Ltd.) Ground Floor, Kasturi Building Jamshedji Tata Road, Mohan. T. Advani Chowk, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 149/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Blue Star Engineering बिधम/ Dcit-1(1)(1) Room No.533/579, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Blue Vs. Star Electro Mechanical Ltd.) Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Ground Floor, Kasturi Road, Mumbai-400020. Building Jamshedji Tata Road, Mohan. T. Advani Chowk, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecb1558M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By: Shri Tharian Oommen (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 06.11.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2014-15. 694/M/2019 A.Y. 2014-15

…is not necessary to square up each individual account. A provision for doubtful debt such presented in accounted would be regarded as an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1)(vii) of the Act. Thereafter, the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bank of India Vs. DCIT (2012) 139 ITD 493 (Mum) also took the similar view. No doubt, the Ld. Representative of the DR has refuted the said contention but the issue has already been settled in the above mentioned case. However, the CIT(A) has allowed the doubtful debts but declined the claim of doubtful advances of Rs.22,64,464/- on the ground of that the assessee is not in the banking b…

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal and cross objection are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

…ashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. v/s. ACIT in ITA. No. 2212/Mum/2011 (BombayTrib.) e. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. (2006) 6 SOT 497 (Bombay Trib.) f. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (2006) 5 SOT 616 (Bombay Trib.) g. Bank of India v DCIT (2012) 139 ITD 493 (Bombay Trib.) 4. In the current year, the prior period expenses constitute only 0.43% of total revenue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Escorts Ltd. v/s. ACIT reported in (2004) 89 TTJ page 221 wherein it has been held that a sum of money so paid in a particular year can…

The Thane District Central Co. Op Bank Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

…y credited in the books of the assessee in the relevant year. 6. So far as the alternate plea of the assessee is concerned, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “State Bank of India vs. DCIT” (2014) 148 ITD 71 wherein the Tribunal has held that when the claim of deduction has been specifically provided under section 36(1)(viia), then merely provision made on the basis of RBI guidelines does not become allowable. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is accordingly dismissed. ……” 2.3.Respectfully following the…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Thane vs. The Thane District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd, Thane

…y credited in the books of the assessee in the relevant year. 6. So far as the alternate plea of the assessee is concerned, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “State Bank of India vs. DCIT” (2014) 148 ITD 71 wherein the Tribunal has held that when the claim of deduction has been specifically provided under section 36(1)(viia), then merely provision made on the basis of RBI guidelines does not become allowable. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is accordingly dismissed. ……” 2.3.Respectfully following the…

Addl CIT RG 3, Mumbai vs. The Gopinath Patil Park Parshik Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Gopinath Patil Parsik Acit Circle-3, Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Vardhan Building, Sahakarmurti Gopinath M.I.D.C. Wagle Indl. Estate, Shivram Patil Bhawan, Vs. Thane Parsik Nagar, Kharegaon, Kalwa, Thane – 400 605 Pan: Aaaap 0267H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

…y credited in the books of the assessee in the relevant year. 6. So far as the alternate plea of the assessee is concerned, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “State Bank of India vs. DCIT” (2014) 148 ITD 71 wherein the Tribunal has held that when the claim of deduction has been specifically provided under section 36(1)(viia), then merely provision made on the basis of M/s. Gopinath Patil Parshik Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. RBI guidelines does not become allowable. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is acc…

Gopinath Patil Parsik Janata Sahakari Bank, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Gopinath Patil Parsik Acit Circle-3, Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Vardhan Building, Sahakarmurti Gopinath M.I.D.C. Wagle Indl. Estate, Shivram Patil Bhawan, Vs. Thane Parsik Nagar, Kharegaon, Kalwa, Thane – 400 605 Pan: Aaaap 0267H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

…y credited in the books of the assessee in the relevant year. 6. So far as the alternate plea of the assessee is concerned, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “State Bank of India vs. DCIT” (2014) 148 ITD 71 wherein the Tribunal has held that when the claim of deduction has been specifically provided under section 36(1)(viia), then merely provision made on the basis of M/s. Gopinath Patil Parshik Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. RBI guidelines does not become allowable. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is acc…