State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…4) of the Act, do not apply. 90. We noted from the above arguments of both the sides and case law cited by the parties, that the issue is squarely covered by a decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore Vs. DCIT [2009] 33 SOT 7 (Bangalore), now merged with assessee. We noted that the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra) narrated the facts and the facts in the present case are exactly the same as in the case of State Bank of Mysore. In the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra), the assessee had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not un…

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…4) of the Act, do not apply. 90. We noted from the above arguments of both the sides and case law cited by the parties, that the issue is squarely covered by a decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore Vs. DCIT [2009] 33 SOT 7 (Bangalore), now merged with assessee. We noted that the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra) narrated the facts and the facts in the present case are exactly the same as in the case of State Bank of Mysore. In the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra), the assessee had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not un…

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…ing deduction under section 36(1)(vii). The relevant observation of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 is extracted below: “4. The Ld.AR stated that the said issue is duly covered by the order in assessee's own case reported in (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang) for A.Y. 2005-06. The State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of coordinate bench ITAT-Mumbai in assessee's own case, ITA No.3644/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2008-09, date of order 03/02/2020. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced as below: - "90. We noted from the above argu…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…ing deduction under section 36(1)(vii). The relevant observation of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 is extracted below: “4. The Ld.AR stated that the said issue is duly covered by the order in assessee's own case reported in (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang) for A.Y. 2005-06. The State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Mysore prior to merger) Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of coordinate bench ITAT-Mumbai in assessee's own case, ITA No.3644/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2008-09, date of order 03/02/2020. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced as below: - "90. We noted from the above argu…

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

…. 2.1 The CIT(A) failed to note that when bad debts written off were not allowed, the question of charging to tax the amount recovered therefrom does not arise. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in case of State Bank of Mysore (33 SOT 7) in this regard. 2.2 Without prejudice to the above the contention of Ld CIT(A) that any recovery towards bad debt written off shall be charged to tax merely because a deduction against provision made for bad and doubtful debts is allowed u/s 36(1)(viia), is contrary to the provisions of the Act since the two terms are not interchangeable. Further c…

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…AO amount to Rs.13,01,85,558/-. In the appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the impugned assessment order and the assesse filed the appeal before us. 4. The Ld.AR stated that the said issue is duly covered by the order in assessee's own case reported in (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang) for A.Y. 2005-06. The Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of coordinate bench ITAT-Mumbai in assessee's own case, ITA No.3644/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2008-09, date of order 03/02/2020. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced as below: - “90. We noted from the above arguments of both the sides and case law cited by the parties, that the is…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

…AO amount to Rs.13,01,85,558/-. In the appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the impugned assessment order and the assesse filed the appeal before us. 4. The Ld.AR stated that the said issue is duly covered by the order in assessee’s own case reported in (2009) 33 SOT 7 (Bang) for A.Y. 2005-06. The Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of coordinate bench ITAT-Mumbai in assessee’s 15 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore own case, ITA No.3644/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2008-09, date of order 03/02/2020. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced as below: - “90. We noted from the above ar…

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] &

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM A.Y.2006-07 [ by Assessee] & ITA No. 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 A.Y.2007-08 [ By AO] & [By Assessee] Vs. State Bank of India The Additional 3rd Floor, Commissionerof Income tax Corporate Centre Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Madam Cama Road Room No 545, Aykar Bhavan Nariman Point Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulkadir Jawad Wala Revenue by Shri P C Chhhotaray Special Counsel Shri Dr Kishor Dhule…

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

…Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM ITA No. 3868/MUM/2013 [ by Assessee] & ITA No . 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] Vs. ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 [ By AO] & ITA no 4105/MUM/2014 [By Assessee] A.Y .2006-07 A.Y .2007-08 State Bank of India 3 r d Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 The Add it ional Commissionerof Income tax Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Room No 545 , Aykar Bhavan Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulka…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

…been duly offered to tax in the current year. 10.4 The learned PCIT erred in not appreciating that the said issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in Bank's own case (State Bank of Mysore, which is now merged with the Appellant) (33 SOT 7) as directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal as well the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the Bank's own case for AY 2008-09 [ITA No. 3644/Mum/2016), wherein the said issue has been decided in favour of the Bank by way of a speaking order. 11. Disallowance of interest expense on Innovative Perpetual Debt Instruments [IPDIs] of INR 12,09,00,00,000. 11.1…

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

…1(4) of the Act, do not apply. 90. We noted from the above arguments of both the sides and case law cited by the parties, that the issue is squarely covered by a decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of MysoreVs. DCIT[2009] 33 SOT 7 (Bangalore), now merged with assessee. We noted that the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra) narrated the facts and the facts in the present case are exactly the same as in the case of State Bank of Mysore. In the case of State Bank of Mysore(supra), the assessee had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not und…

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

…1(4) of the Act, do not apply. 90. We noted from the above arguments of both the sides and case law cited by the parties, that the issue is squarely covered by a decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of MysoreVs. DCIT[2009] 33 SOT 7 (Bangalore), now merged with assessee. We noted that the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra) narrated the facts and the facts in the present case are exactly the same as in the case of State Bank of Mysore. In the case of State Bank of Mysore(supra), the assessee had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not und…

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…supra) is reproduced as under: We noted from the above arguments of both the sides and case law cited by the parties, that the issue is squarely covered by a decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore Vs. DCIT [2009] 33 SOT 7 (Bangalore), now merged with assessee. We noted that the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra) narrated the facts and the facts in the present case are exactly the same as in the case of State Bank of Mysore. In the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra), the assessee had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not un…

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…supra) is reproduced as under: We noted from the above arguments of both the sides and case law cited by the parties, that the issue is squarely covered by a decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore Vs. DCIT [2009] 33 SOT 7 (Bangalore), now merged with assessee. We noted that the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra) narrated the facts and the facts in the present case are exactly the same as in the case of State Bank of Mysore. In the case of State Bank of Mysore (supra), the assessee had claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and not un…