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

viia) (c) deals with in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by (c) a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation, an amount not exceeding five percent of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-a)." 21. Section 36 is included

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

viia) (c) deals with in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by (c) a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation, an amount not exceeding five percent of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-a)." 21. Section 36 is included

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

viia) (c) deals with in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by (c) a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation, an amount not exceeding five percent of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-a)." 21. Section 36 is included

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

viia) (c) deals with in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts\nmade by\n(c) a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial\ninvestment corporation, an amount not exceeding five percent of the total income\n(computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-a).\"\n21. Section 36

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

viia) (c) deals with in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts\nmade by\n(c) a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial\ninvestment corporation, an amount not exceeding five percent of the total income\n(computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-a).\"\n\n21. Section 36

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

viia) (c) deals with in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by (c) a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation, an amount not exceeding five percent of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-a)." 21. Section 36 is included

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

viia) (c) deals with in respect of any provisions for bad and doubtful debts\nmade by\n(c) a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial\ninvestment corporation, an amount not exceeding five percent of the total income\n(computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-a).\"\n21. Section 36

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

viia) of the Act.\nAccordingly, ground no.7, raised in assessee's appeal is allowed.\nRespectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench,\nGround No. 3 is allowed.\n17. Ground No. 4 relates to the applicability of provisions of Section\n115JB of the Act. This issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nin assessee's own case

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

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

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

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

viia) of the Act. \nXXII. Deduction of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. \nXXIII. Addition of interest income on income-tax refund. \nXXIV. Dropping penalty proceeding initiated u/s.270A of the Act. \nXXV. Penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) on disallowance on deduction \nu/s.36(1)(viii) \n\n3. \nRelevant grounds for each of the assessment years, both in the \ncase

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

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

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

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