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

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

1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and each one of them does not depend upon the other for the extension of the benefit. 26. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on CIT. H.P. Housing Board [2012] 18 taxmann.com 129/205 Taxman 1/340 ITR 388 (HP). The facts in that case are as follows:- "The Assessee-housing board

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

1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and each one of them does not depend upon the other for the extension of the benefit. 26. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on CIT. H.P. Housing Board [2012] 18 taxmann.com 129/205 Taxman 1/340 ITR 388 (HP). The facts in that case are as follows:- "The Assessee-housing board

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

1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and each one of them does not depend upon the other for the extension of the benefit. 26. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on CIT. H.P. Housing Board [2012] 18 taxmann.com 129/205 Taxman 1/340 ITR 388 (HP). The facts in that case are as follows:- "The Assessee-housing board

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

1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and\neach one of them does not depend upon the other for the extension of the benefit.\n\n26. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on CIT. H.P. Housing Board\n[2012] 18 taxmann.com 129/205 Taxman 1/340 ITR 388 (HP). The facts in that case\nare as follows

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

1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and\neach one of them does not depend upon the other for the extension of the benefit.\n26. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on CIT. H.P. Housing Board\n[2012] 18 taxmann.com 129/205 Taxman 1/340 ITR 388 (HP). The facts in that case\nare as follows:-\n\"The Assessee

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

1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and each one of them does not depend upon the other for the extension of the benefit. 26. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on CIT. H.P. Housing Board [2012] 18 taxmann.com 129/205 Taxman 1/340 ITR 388 (HP). The facts in that case are as follows:- "The Assessee-housing board

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

1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and\neach one of them does not depend upon the other for the extension of the benefit.\n26. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on CIT. H.P. Housing Board\n[2012] 18 taxmann.com 129/205 Taxman 1/340 ITR 388 (HP). The facts in that case\nare as follows:-\n\"The Assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

36 of 2003),\n(d) in the case of a company governed by any other law for the time being in\nforce, any matters which are not required to be disclosed by that law.\"\n44. The second proviso applies to any insurance company, hanking company\nor any company engaged in the generation or supply of electricity or to any\nother

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

36(1)(viia) of the Act as claimed by the assessee. In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 30 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore Ground 7: Disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Rs.8,10,18,335/- 26. During the year under consideration

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

36(1)(viia) of the Act as claimed by the assessee.\nIn the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed.\nGround 7: Disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act\nRs.8,10,18,335/-\n26. During the year under consideration, the assessee Bank incurred and claimed\nAdvertisement Expenses, Audit Fees and Law charges

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

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

36(1) (viia) of Rs. 14, 61, 00,000/-.\nix. Therefore, the reopening of assessment has become bad in law and should be quashed.\nNow the issue has been decided in favour of assessee by the Ld. CIT (A)\nrelying on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter\n15.\nMetals Ltd. vs. ACIT

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

36(1) (viia) of Rs. 14, 61, 00,000/-.\nix. Therefore, the reopening of assessment has become bad in law and should be quashed.\nNow the issue has been decided in favour of assessee by the Ld. CIT (A)\nrelying on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GKN Sinter\n25\nITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others\nM/s

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

36(1)(viia)(b) in terms of the observations above.” Respectfully,following the above order of the Tribunal,effective ground of appeal is decided against the AO. ITA/3592/Mum/2013(AY.2009-10): 10.First ground of appeal,filed by the assessee,is about disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.r.8D (2) (ii)of the Rules. Following our order for the last AY.Ground no.1 is decided in favour

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, if this expenditure is incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act, the same shall only be allowed as deduction only against the exempt income u/s 14A of the Act or in other words , such interest

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, if this expenditure is incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act, the same shall only be allowed as deduction only against the exempt income u/s 14A of the Act or in other words , such interest

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

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

36(2) of the IT Act not satisfied and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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

36(2) of the IT Act not satisfied and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" and hence not entitled for the said deduction claimed?" 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case