← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(vii)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)853 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(vii) is TRF Ltd. v. CIT (323 ITR 397), cited in 714 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii)

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
347 ITR 272 · 2012 · High Court
516
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts before making any disallowance.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

Vijaya Bank v. CIT
323 ITR 166 · 2010 · Supreme Court
392
citing judgments

A provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account and reduced from advances on the balance sheet constitutes a write-off for deduction purposes. This is true even if individual debtor accounts are not closed.

Southern Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT
320 ITR 577 · 2010 · Supreme Court
353
citing judgments

The case concerns the allowability of deductions for provisions made under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially those related to bad and doubtful debts. It distinguishes such deductions from the recognition of interest income on non-performing assets (NPAs).

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 1 · 1959 · Supreme Court
341
citing judgments

When following the mercantile system of accounting, provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as deductions, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 270 · 2012 · Supreme Court
326
citing judgments

For a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), the debt must be actually written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, distinct from merely making a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee bears the onus to satisfy the conditions under both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act.

United Commercial Bank v. CIT
240 ITR 355 · 1999 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

Liabilities accrued on a notional basis are allowable as deductions under the mercantile system of accounting even if their exact quantification or discharge is deferred to a future date or if the demand itself is disputed.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(vii)

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8420/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 23Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80M

reasons for write off of debts of the said companies. 14. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submits that after amendment to section 36(1)(vii) of the Act w.e.f. 01/04/1989, it is not obligatory on the part of assessee to prove that the debt has turned bad, if the debt ... undisputed fact that the assessee has written off bad debts in the books of 12 ITA NO.8435/MUM/2010(A.Y.2003-04) account. The provisions of section 36(1)(vii) were amended w.e.f. 1st April 1989. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd.(supra) after analyzing the provisions of section

S.B.& T. Designs Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. CIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 814/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhs.B. &. T. Designs Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Cit 8(1)(2) Room No. 15, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Yusuf Building, Abdul New Marine Line, Rehman Street, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 003 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics6223L Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dr. P. Daniel Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 10.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 23.02.2023 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned C.I.T(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 6.18,65,166/-, Being The Bad Debts Claimed. 2. The Learned C.I.T(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Disallowances Of Bad Debts Of Rs. 6,18,65,166/-, Being The Sundry Drs. Written Off As Well As Sundry Balances Written Off. 3. The Learned C.I.T(A) Erred In Not Following The Principles Of Natural Justice. 4. The Learned C.It(A) Confirmed The Order Of The A.O. Directing The Assessee To Prove The Impossible Acts.

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad
Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

previous year, therefore, the claim of sundry balance written off amounting to Rs.596,53,854/- was not allowed under the provisions of Sections 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 3. Further, during the course of assessment the AO called upon the assessee to furnish the party wise ledger account

Gng Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

Accordingly the interest was allowed u/s 37 of the Act

ITA 7601/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7601/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Gng Ltd. Vs. Acit, Village Babupur, Sector 108, Circle - 4(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

lakhs is not allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 7. There is no doubt that within the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act the deduction was not allowable. A perusal of the submissions of assessee before Ld. CIT(A) and the grounds raised ... first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) show that assessee had not made any specific claim that instead of provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, Ld. AO should have invoked Section 37 and allowed the write off as an expenditure. The submissions reproduced

ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi vs. Clix Finance India P.Ltd (Earlier Known As Ge Capital Services India Ltd), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 144C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1763/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT DR
Section 43BSection 92C

DRP/Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that the Appellant had satisfied the twin conditions for allowance of deduction for bad debts contained in Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act, which are that the (a) bad debts have been written off as irrecoverable

DCIT, Circle-2(2), Surat vs. The Surat District Co-Op. Bank Limited, Surat

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

principles of consistency. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Vs CIT (supra) after discussing the scope of section 36(1)(vii) and (viia) held that both the provisions are separate and distinct, the relevant part of the decisions of extracted below for appreciation of the controversy ... case in hand; “17. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) would come into play in the grant of deductions, subject to the limitation contained in Section 36(2) of the Act. Any bad debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee

The Surat District Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 590/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

principles of consistency. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Vs CIT (supra) after discussing the scope of section 36(1)(vii) and (viia) held that both the provisions are separate and distinct, the relevant part of the decisions of extracted below for appreciation of the controversy ... case in hand; “17. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) would come into play in the grant of deductions, subject to the limitation contained in Section 36(2) of the Act. Any bad debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 7553/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 6116/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 547/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

ACIT (OSD), Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 133/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 7856/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

ACIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 5202/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 4796/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

account was not necessary to constitute actual write off of bad debts. Hon’ble apex Court explained the impact of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii) and the concept of write off as follows: “To understand the above dichotomy, one must understand ‘how to write off’. If an assessee debits ... case of mere creating provision but actual writing off of the bad debts, and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On this premise we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 1 of the appeal

Jik Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1039/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sunil TalatiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

amounting to INR 25,72,68,331/- were in the nature of bad debts written off and therefore, allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act, though the same was voluntarily disallowed. According to the Appellant the time for filing revised return

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Abhyudaya Co-Op Bank Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1128/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

issued a show cause notice to the assessee with regard to the amount of Rs.4,21,14,192/- claimed as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) by stating that – “4. From the perusal of the records, it is found that assessee has claimed ... created as per provisions of Section 36(1)(viia), for which assessee has claimed deduction in earlier years. As per the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, only the bad debts over and above the balance of provision is allowed for deduction. As assessee was having sufficient

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3501/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

section Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in ignoring the amendment in section Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in ignoring the amendment in section 36(1) (vii) as per which there is no requirement to maintain 36(1) (vii) as per which there is no requirement to maintain 36(1) (vii

DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3239/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

section Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in ignoring the amendment in section Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in ignoring the amendment in section 36(1) (vii) as per which there is no requirement to maintain 36(1) (vii) as per which there is no requirement to maintain 36(1) (vii

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 5765/MUM/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER