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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

delay in making such Cross Objection.” 3. When this was pointed out to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he objected to condonation but could not give any reason for objection. After hearing both the sides, we feel that this is a fit case for condonation because the assessee inadvertently and under bonafide belief could not file cross objection even though

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

36(1)(viia) and Section 44C of the Act. 27. When this issue was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) following the decision given in AY 2013-14 and earlier AYs, denied the claim. 28. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below, we are of the considered view

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

condone the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. ITA.No.3375/Mum/2023 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 22. The contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2022 to section 14A whereby it has been clarified that the provisions

GS MAHANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE -1(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFOREHON'BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the reason for the AO to deny the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is that the assessee has transferred the amount of Rs. 45,00,000 from provision for interest on standard asset to provision

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1

KOKAN MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of Rs. 25,01,789/- which is allowable deduction to the Appellant bank.” 10. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 40 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons of delay. The counsel of the assessee was hospitalized and eventually passed away due to which the filing

KOKAN MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of Rs. 25,01,789/- which is allowable deduction to the Appellant bank.” 10. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 40 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons of delay. The counsel of the assessee was hospitalized and eventually passed away due to which the filing

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD, THANE

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

condoning the delay, we admit the cross objection for adjudication on merit. 6. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a co-operative bank registered with the Government of Maharashtra. As stated by the assessing officer, the assessee is engaged in banking operation as per framework of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment year Appeal by No. of days delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1

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

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1

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

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the said delay. Accordingly, we take up the appeals for adjudication. Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by No. of days year delay 1. 2980/Mum/2024 2014-15 Revenue 18 2. 2979/Mum/2024 2015-16 Revenue 18 3. 2049/Mum/2023 2016-17 Revenue 1 4. 2046/Mum/2023 2017-18 Revenue 1