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

vii)(a)(c) and Clause (viii) were placed on par. The amendment did not change the character of the deduction but changed the method of computation. By the amendment, an Assessee was permitted to compute deduction at 40% of the profits derived out of business and not 40% of the total income. This was a significant shift in the method

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

vii)(a)(c) and Clause (viii) were placed on par. The\namendment did not change the character of the deduction but changed the method of\ncomputation. By the amendment, an Assessee was permitted to compute deduction at\n40% of the profits derived out of business and not 40% of the total income. This was\na significant shift in the method

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

vii)(a)(c) and Clause (viii) were placed on par. The\namendment did not change the character of the deduction but changed the method of\ncomputation. By the amendment, an Assessee was permitted to compute deduction at\n40% of the profits derived out of business and not 40% of the total income. This was\na significant shift in the method

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

vii)(a)(c) and Clause (viii) were placed on par. The\namendment did not change the character of the deduction but changed the method of\ncomputation. By the amendment, an Assessee was permitted to compute deduction at\n40% of the profits derived out of business and not 40% of the total income. This was\na significant shift in the method

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

vii)(a)(c) and Clause (viii) were placed on par. The amendment did not change the character of the deduction but changed the method of computation. By the amendment, an Assessee was permitted to compute deduction at 40% of the profits derived out of business and not 40% of the total income. This was a significant shift in the method

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

vii)(a)(c) and Clause (viii) were placed on par. The amendment did not change the character of the deduction but changed the method of computation. By the amendment, an Assessee was permitted to compute deduction at 40% of the profits derived out of business and not 40% of the total income. This was a significant shift in the method

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

vii)(a)(c) and Clause (viii) were placed on par. The amendment did not change the character of the deduction but changed the method of computation. By the amendment, an Assessee was permitted to compute deduction at 40% of the profits derived out of business and not 40% of the total income. This was a significant shift in the method

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) in earlier years is not taxable.\nAccordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made in this regard.\"\n5.2 Respectfully following the findings of the coordinate bench, we direct the AO to\ndelete the impugned addition. Ground No. 2 is allowed.\"\n11. Ground No. 2 with its sub-grounds are accordingly allowed.\n12. Ground No. 3 relates

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

vii) as the assessee has been claiming the said deduction since\nAY 2008-09, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) since AY 2008-09 by\nconsistently using the same method by using the turnover / gross income as the\nsame allocation key. The revenue authorities in past years as well have examined\nthe said method / ratio and have accepted

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

vii) as the assessee has been claiming the said deduction since AY 2008-09, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) since AY 2008-09 by 27 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore consistently using the same method by using the turnover / gross income as the same allocation key. The revenue authorities

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii). then if the\namount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference\nbetween the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits\nand gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of\nthe previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii). then if the\namount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference\nbetween the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits\nand gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of\nthe previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii). then if the\namount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference\nbetween the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits\nand gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of\nthe previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii). then if the\namount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference\nbetween the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits\nand gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of\nthe previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36

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

vii) after verification of provisions for bad and doubtful debt accounts of the earlier assessment years and doubtful debt accounts of the earlier assessment years and doubtful debt accounts of the earlier assessment years and examine claim of allow ability of deduction us 36(1)(vi) of and examine claim of allow ability of deduction us 36(1

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

vii) after verification of provisions for bad and doubtful debt accounts of the earlier assessment years and doubtful debt accounts of the earlier assessment years and doubtful debt accounts of the earlier assessment years and examine claim of allow ability of deduction us 36(1)(vi) of and examine claim of allow ability of deduction us 36(1