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

gains from business and profession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade", certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

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

gains from business and profession. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as 'stock-in-trade", certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from

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

gains of business or profession.\"\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"relevant assessment\nyears\" means the five consecutive assessment years commencing on or after\nthe 1st day of April, 2000 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2005;”\n35. Thus, as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the\nprovision

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

gains of business or profession.\"\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"relevant assessment\nyears\" means the five consecutive assessment years commencing on or after\nthe 1st day of April, 2000 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2005;”\n35. Thus, as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the\nprovision

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

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

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

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

vii) and section 36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently\nconfirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly,\nwe hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the\nissue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench\nin assessee

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

vii) and section 36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently\nconfirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly,\nwe hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the\nissue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench\nin assessee

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

vii) and section 36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently\nconfirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly,\nwe hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the\nissue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench\nin 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

vii) and section 36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently confirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in 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

vii) and section 36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently confirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in 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

vii) and section 36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently confirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee

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) and section 36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently confirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee

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

Capital Pharma v. ITO (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 34/2013); • DCIT v. Ananda Marakala (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 1584/2012); • Arcadia Share and Stock Brokers ITA 1871/Mum/2013; • S.S. Networks vs. ITO (ITAT Hyd) (ITA No.478/2013), 8. Addition on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C- Rs. 6,98,56,399 a) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned

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

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 not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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 not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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 not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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 not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

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

36(1)(viii). \nVIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. \nIX. Exemption u/s.54EC in respect of capital gains arising on \ndepreciable assets. \nX. Disallowance of FCCB issue expenses. \nXI. Set-off of short-term capital loss. \nXII. Income from India Value Fund.\n\n11 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs