State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Ltu (2), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

…fore, we concur with the view of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard and dismiss ground no.1 raised by the assessee. 7. On the issue of recovery of bad-debts of rural branches, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in State Bank of Mysore (33 SOT 7). However, the said decision was Union Bank of India Assessment Year: 2010-11 distinguished by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the effect of Section 36(2)(v) was not considered in the stated decision. Regarding assessee’s reliance on appellate order in its own case for AY 2014-15, it was observed that though the issue was decided in assessee’s favor b…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…f Rs.282,00,00,000” 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case o/State Bank of Maysore (33 SOT 7), ignoring the fact that the bad debt, written off of Rs.1,45,08,289/- of rural branches, recovered by the assessee are included in the provision of doubtful debts claimed by the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viia) of theAct” 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of Asses…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…f Rs.282,00,00,000” 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case o/State Bank of Maysore (33 SOT 7), ignoring the fact that the bad debt, written off of Rs.1,45,08,289/- of rural branches, recovered by the assessee are included in the provision of doubtful debts claimed by the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viia) of theAct” 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of Asses…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…f Rs.282,00,00,000” 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case o/State Bank of Maysore (33 SOT 7), ignoring the fact that the bad debt, written off of Rs.1,45,08,289/- of rural branches, recovered by the assessee are included in the provision of doubtful debts claimed by the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viia) of theAct” 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of Asses…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 1804/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2011-12) आअसं. 1805/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2012-13) आअसं. 1806/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2013-14) आअसं. 1807/मुं/2018 ("न.व 2014-15) Union Bank Of India, Central Accounts Dept., 6Th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacu0564G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

…f Rs.282,00,00,000” 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case o/State Bank of Maysore (33 SOT 7), ignoring the fact that the bad debt, written off of Rs.1,45,08,289/- of rural branches, recovered by the assessee are included in the provision of doubtful debts claimed by the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viia) of theAct” 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in restoring the issue back to the file of Asses…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Dy.Commissioner Of Income Vs. State Bank Of India Tax Financial Reporting & Circle-2(2)(1) Taxation Department 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Mumbai State Bank Bhavan Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs8577K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…vision for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the ld. AO should have followed the Co- ordinate Bench decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of Mysore reported in 33 SOT 7 wherein it was clearly held that when no deduction in respect of bad debts written off was claimed u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act, but only adjusted against the deduction allowed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act, the provisions of Section 41(4) of the Act cannot be brought into operation for taxing the recovery in respect of bad debts written off. We find that…

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…d that additional ground no.1 is covered by the decision of ITA. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank vs. CIT(323 ITR 166), Ground No.2 is covered by the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (33 SOT 7) (Bang.) and Ground No.3 is covered by the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Bank of India vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2781/Mum/2011 and similar grounds of appeal was remanded back to the file of AO for fresh examination and adjudication by the Tribunal for AY 1996-97 vide order dated 03.01.2014 in M.A No. 371/M/2014. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Reve…

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

…) 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. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…onal grounds of appeal. It was further argued that additional ground no.1 is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank vs. CIT(323 ITR 166), Ground No.2 is covered by the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (33 SOT 7) (Bang.) and Ground No.3 is covered by the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Bank of India vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2781/Mum/2011 and similar grounds of appeal was remanded back to the file of AO for fresh examination and adjudication by the Tribunal for AY 1996-97 vide order dated 03.01.2014 in M.A No. 371/M/2014. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the R…

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…onal grounds of appeal. It was further argued that additional ground no.1 is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank vs. CIT(323 ITR 166), Ground No.2 is covered by the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in State Bank of Mysore vs. DCIT (33 SOT 7) (Bang.) and Ground No.3 is covered by the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Bank of India vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2781/Mum/2011 and similar grounds of appeal was remanded back to the file of AO for fresh examination and adjudication by the Tribunal for AY 1996-97 vide order dated 03.01.2014 in M.A No. 371/M/2014. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the R…

The Zorastrian Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Zorastrian Co-Operative The Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax-1, Dr. Annie Besant Road, 387, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaaz0071B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the Appeal of the Assessee on merits and without going into the jurisdictional issue. We find that the ITAT, after examining the entire factual matrix of the matter and after relying upon its own judgments in the case of State Bank of Mysore v. Dy. CIT [2009] 33 SOT 7 (Bang) and ACIT v. Vijaya Bank [IT Appeal No. 253/BANG/2007 dated 24th January 2008] as well as the judgment of the Kanataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. (supra), held that the claim of the Assessee for the loss of Rs. 87.11 lakhs on the transfer of securities from the category “Available for Sale” to “Held to Maturity” was an allow…

The Hindustan Co Operative Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1501/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009­10) The Hindustan Co­Operative Bank Ltd. Jt. Cit­13(3), बनाम/ 4­A, Devi Galli, Baburao Bobde Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Lokhand Bazar, Mumbai­400 009 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabat 4355 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Amar Gahlot, Shri S. Sriram ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raja सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 01.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)­24, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.11.2013, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009­ 10 Vide Order Dated 21.12.2011. 2. The Assessee, A Co­Operative Bank In The Business Of Banking, Governed By The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 As Well As The Maharashtra State Co­Operative Societies Act, 1960, Claimed ‘Investment Loss Adjusted From Idr’ In The Sum Of Rs.80.991 Lacs In The Computation Of Its Business Income For The Year (Pb Pgs. 24­26). It Is This Claim

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एच” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1501/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009­10) The Hindustan Co­operative Bank Ltd. Jt. CIT­13(3), बनाम/ 4­A, Devi Galli, Baburao Bobde Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Lokhand Bazar, Mumbai­400 009 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABAT 4355 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Amar Gahlot, Shri S. Sriram ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri B. Satyanarayana Raja सुनवाई क" तार"ख…

M/S. State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT. Spl. RG. - 27, Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3823-24/Mum/2005 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S.1997-98, 1998-99 वष" State Bank Of India Addl. Cit- Range-2(2) Accounts & Compliance Deptt. Mumbai. Corporate Centre,Madam Cama Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aaacs 8577 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav Assessee By:Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :02.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench: Challenging The Orders Dated 24.3.2005 & 28.3.2005 The Asssessee Has Filed The Appeals For Above Mentioned Two Ay.S Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal. It Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Of Appeal For The Ay 1997-98.Assessee,A Public Sector Bank Is Engaged In The Business Of Banking.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Income Etc., For Both The Years Can Be Summarised As Under : A.Y. Roi Filed Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders On Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Of Cit(A) 1997-98 28.11.1997 2086,56,04,580/- 27.03.2000 2433,18,77,427/- 24.3.2005 1998-99 30.11.1998 2816,41,01,920/- 14.02.2001 3558,87,03,620/- 28.3.2005

…in support of its claim ;- 3823-24/M/05-SBI 1. Covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 2. Covered by the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of State Bank of India Mysore Vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 7 (BANG.) 3. Covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of Bank of India Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2781/Mum/2011) However since the issue has not been examined by the AO, therefore, in the interest of justice we remit these grounds to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication…