DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

2(1).\n“The law on re-opening of an assessment under the Act is fairly settled. An assessment once\nmade, is final. The Assessing Officer can re-open an assessment only in accordance with the\nexpress provisions provided in section 147/148. This is for the reason that there is a\nfinality/sanctity attached to an assessment order. It is only

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

24,680/-. The return\nwas selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices\nwere issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of scrutiny\nassessment proceedings, the AO observed that an amount of Rs.\n471,05,05,075/- has been claimed as bad debts written off with regard to\nthe non-rural branches in the statement of computation

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on\n01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the\ndeduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on\nthis issue is deleted. As a result, Ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

2: Claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(c) after reducing from the appellant's income deduction under Section 36(1) (viii) of the Act:- 16 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 19. The issue which arises is whether deduction should be firstly allowed in terms

CITIZENCREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (HILL ROAD BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-WARD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

2) [Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992, w.e.f. 1-6-1992.]\n17\n==End of OCR for page 17==\nITA Nos.6035 to 6042 & 6385 to 6442/M/2025\nCitizen Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd.\n(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply-\n(i) where the amount of such income or, as the case may be, the aggregate

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (BYCULLA BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT\n(A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated\n05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18,\n2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance\nin amounts, therefore

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ( BORIVILI BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

24,929 u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I. T. Act, 1961, aggregating to Rs. 54,257 deserves to be deleted in toto. 3. According to the order passed by the TDS authority, consequent to a of survey proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee, being a Cooperative bank had not deducted and deposited TDS u/s.194A on interest paid

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (KULA BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) WARD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT\n(A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated\n05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18,\n2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance\nin amounts, therefore

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

2(i) of assessee related deduction in relation to rural branch is duly rejected. Ground 3: Disallowance of excess depreciation on Automated Teller Machies [‘ATM’] and other computer peripherals by reclassifying as plant and machinery – Rs.9,74,43,086/- 12. On this issue, the assessee claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Act at 60% by treating the ATMs

CITIZEN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (MULUND BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT\n(A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated\n05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18,\n2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance\nin amounts, therefore

CITIZEN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS)-1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT\n(A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated\n05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18,\n2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance\nin amounts, therefore

CITIZENCREDIT CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED (AMBOLI BRANCH),MUMBAI vs. ITO(TDS) 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act') by the Addl./JCIT\n(A) – 10, Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated\n05.09.2025 [in short, ‘CIT(A)'] for the assessment years (AYs) 2016-17, 2017-18,\n2018-19 and 2019-20. Since the issues in these appeal are similar except variance\nin amounts, therefore

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso