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

depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly.\n46. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly submits that, as on now, the issue is covered, against the assessee, by decisions of the coordinate benches, and he does not, therefore, press the issue any further. Obviously, however, he retains his right to carry the matter

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

1 and held as under:- "25. ...The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Pr CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017) 88 taxmann.com 667/393 ITR 476 (Puni. & Har.) while adverting to the CBDT Circular, concluded correctly that shares and securities held by a bank are stock-in-trade, and all income received on such shares and securities

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

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

section 2 36(1)(viia). Disallowance of depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

section 2 36(1)(viia). Disallowance of depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

36(1)(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

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

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and Rule 6ABA of the IT Rules. g) The learned CIT(A) erroneously interpreted the provisions of the Rule 6ABA of the IT Rules and stated that if the outstanding balance of advances is to be reckoned for calculating Aggregate Average Advances, then the denominator should also include the months of the preceding

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

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and Rule 6ABA of the IT Rules.\ng) The learned CIT(A) erroneously interpreted the provisions of the Rule 6ABA of\nthe IT Rules and stated that if the outstanding balance of advances is to be\nreckoned for calculating Aggregate Average Advances, then the denominator\nshould also include the months of the preceding

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that ■ sections 28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

Depreciation of investments of Rs.46,19,11,355. (d) Deduction allowed under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs. 159,22,24,604. (e) Excess

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1) as inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 which is applicable from assessment years 2014-15 onwards. 6. Depreciation on securities The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in reducing depreciation/taxing appreciation in the value of securities held as Available for Sale (AFS) and Held for Trading (HFT) category. 7. Depreciation under section

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

36(1) as inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 which is applicable from assessment years 2014-15 onwards. 6. Depreciation on securities The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in reducing depreciation/taxing appreciation in the value of securities held as Available for Sale (AFS) and Held for Trading (HFT) category. 7. Depreciation under section

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts (other than in respect of rural advances). So grounds No.5.1 & 5.2 are decided in favour of the assessee. Ground No.6 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 26. The AO made an addition of Rs.17,40,43,00,607/- by reducing depreciation/taxing appreciation in the value of securities held

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts (other than in respect of rural advances). So grounds No.5.1 & 5.2 are decided in favour of the assessee. Ground No.6 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 26. The AO made an addition of Rs.17,40,43,00,607/- by reducing depreciation/taxing appreciation in the value of securities held

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT (OSD)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2014-15

Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in accordance with the findings/observations given in its order; (iii) make adjustment to book profits in respect of profit of foreign branches and provisions in accordance with the findings/observations in its order. 15 Bank of India 15. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being the amount of bad debts written off (other than in respect of rural advances). This issue of assessee appeal is allowed. 60. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing deduction claimed by assessee on account

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

depreciation on value of investments and re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), in respect of provisions of bad debts, as well as bad debt written off. 4. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT-2, Mumbai has issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to explain

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

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

section 36(1)(vii) .” 1929/M/12-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (+7Appls) Respectfully,following the above,we decide ground no.3 in favour of the assessee. 7.Next ground is about depreciation

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act.\nThe income from housing finance has been arrived at as under:-\n1\nInterest on loans\nOther loans\n842,91,65,895\nInterest on loans against Deposit\n2,65,62,315\n2\nFee Income:\nProcessing, Administrative Fees & Commitment Charges\n38,22,97,399\nPrepayment Charges\n4,01,28,320\nAPF Fees\n1,36