DCIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

…) 291 ITR 144 and of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Deputy Commissioner of income tax versus Karnataka bank Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 705. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Punjab and Sindh bank versus ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 103. 119) He fairly invited our attention also to the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case passed on 12 July 2021 for assessment year 2001 – 02 and 2002 – 03 wherein identical issue has been inadvertently decided against the bank assessee against which the miscellaneous application was filed which has been decided on 24 June 2022 an…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

…ITR 144 and of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Deputy Commissioner of income tax versus Karnataka bank Ltd (2012) 349 ITR 705. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Punjab and Sindh bank versus ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 103 (Delhi). 119) He fairly invited our attention also to the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case passed on 12 July 2021 for assessment year 2001 – 02 and 2002 – 03 wherein identical issue has been inadvertently decided against the bank assessee against which the miscellaneous application was filed which has been decided on…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras);  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC);  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi). 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non-rural advances, is Clarificatory in nature. In this regard, reliance is placed on the de…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras);  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC);  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi). 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non-rural advances, is Clarificatory in nature. In this regard, reliance is placed on the de…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…es of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC), DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) and Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. 27 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras), we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts (other than in respect of rural adv…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…es of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC), DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) and Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. 27 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras), we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts (other than in respect of rural adv…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…o placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras)  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC)  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non- rural advances, is Clarificatory in nature. In this regard, reliance is placed on the de…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

…placed on the following decisions, wherein the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee:  CIT vs. City Union Bank Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Madras)  DCIT vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 705 (SC)  Punjab & Sind Bank vs. ACIT [2008] 23 SOT 103 (Delhi) 59. Further, it was contended that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2014 which states that proviso to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and section 36(2)(v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non- 66 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 rural advances, is Clarifi…