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

viii). It\nwill thus take outside the purview of deduction, income arising from other business\nactivities or from source other than business.\"\n\n25. The above must be given harmonious and purposive interpretation that each one\nof the Clauses under sub-section (1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and\neach one of them does not depend upon

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

viii). It will thus take outside the purview of deduction, income arising from other business activities or from source other than business." 25. The above must be given harmonious and purposive interpretation that each one of the Clauses under sub-section (1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and each one of them does not depend upon

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

viii). It\nwill thus take outside the purview of deduction, income arising from other business\nactivities or from source other than business.\"\n25. The above must be given harmonious and purposive interpretation that each one\nof the Clauses under sub-section (1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and\neach one of them does not depend upon

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

viii). It will thus take outside the purview of deduction, income arising from other business activities or from source other than business." 25. The above must be given harmonious and purposive interpretation that each one of the Clauses under sub-section (1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and each one of them does not depend upon

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

viii). It will thus take outside the purview of deduction, income arising from other business activities or from source other than business." 25. The above must be given harmonious and purposive interpretation that each one of the Clauses under sub-section (1) of Section 36 is independent in its operation and each one of them does not depend upon

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

viii) of the Act as computed. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO is directed to be deleted. 24. In the result, Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground 6: Disallowance of provision for loss in present value terms under debts relief scheme - Rs.5,55,00,000/- 25. We have considered the rival submissions

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

viii) of the Act as computed. Accordingly, the\ndisallowance made by the Ld. AO is directed to be deleted.\n24. In the result, Ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal is allowed.\nGround 6: Disallowance of provision for loss in present value terms under debts\nrelief scheme - Rs.5,55,00,000/-\n25. We have considered the rival submissions

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

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

viii. CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix.CIT v.Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) 5 1929/M/12-Kotak

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

section 36(1)(viii), falling within sub-clause \n(vi) as “any other financial corporation including a public company”. It \nalso submitted that NTPC Ltd., was given loan for development of \ninfrastructure facility in India which falls in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) \nof Explanation below the said provision. \n\n6. 3. It was brought to the knowledge

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

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n21\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A

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

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n20\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A

M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP,MENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3371/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3372/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3373/Mum/2004 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2000-01) Industrial Development Bank Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income India, Taxation Cell, 3 Rd Floor, Tax, Range 3(1), 6 Th Floor, Room Vs. Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, No. 623, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1105R Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4744/Mum/2005 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5962/Mum/2008 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3907/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3908/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3909/Mum/2009 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2488/Mum/2010 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 13/Mum/2011

section 40(a)(ii) which deals with the matter covers any tax paid on profits and gains of business or profession of the assessee. This interest for delayed remittance of TDS not being so and besides not being in the nature of penalty it should not have been disallowed. 11.3 The appeal on this ground is allowed.‖ 45. Aggrieved, Revenue

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

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 1941(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income hy way of interest\nis obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that\nSection 194A(1) shall not apply if the payment

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

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n21\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency