STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

depreciation on additions to computers and software expenses and allow the claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file the relevant documents and evidences as may be called for and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability – Ground No.4 in assessee's appeal State Bank

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

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

depreciation on additions to computers and software expenses and allow the claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file the relevant documents and evidences as may be called for and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability – Ground No.4 in assessee's appeal State Bank

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

iv) Clause (d) is applicable to Non-banking financial company from AY\n2017-18.\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (supra) has held\nthat the PBDD allowed under clause (a) of Sec. 36(1)(viia) refers to 'rural advances'\nonly. In fact the expression \"rural branches\" finds place in clause (a) only

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.

iv) of section 143(1) (a) of the Act applies and we do not see any fault at the end of the CPC, Bengaluru while considering these amounts for the purposes Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. of disallowance u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Our observations are with reference to scope of section 143(1) of the Act only and there

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

Section 36(1) (vii). iii. Failed to disallow the provision for depreciation on investment amounting to ₹46,19,11,355/-. iv

RISHABH METALS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CPC, DCIT -CIR 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerishabh Metals & Chemicals V. Dcit-Circle -1(3)(1) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 4Th Floor, Eross Theatre Bldg Mumbai - 400020 Jt Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr2214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

iv). When the due date under explanation to section 36(1)(va) is judicially held to be decisive for determining the disallowance in the computation of total income, there is no good reason to proceed on the basis that payment having been made after this due date is indicative of the disallowance of expenditure in question. While preparing tax audit

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

Depreciation under section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.234,81,61,782 7.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the provision for standard assets amounting to Rs.234,81,61,782is to be excluded for determining the deduction under section 36(1)(viia). 7.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that even in respect of assets that

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

Depreciation under section 36(1)(viia) of Rs.234,81,61,782 7.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the provision for standard assets amounting to Rs.234,81,61,782is to be excluded for determining the deduction under section 36(1)(viia). 7.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that even in respect of assets that

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)

depreciation on appreciation in the value of securities held as available for sale by treating the same for trading category. So ground No.6 is determined in favour of the assessee. Grounds No.7.1 & 7.2 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 30. The AO by invoking the provisions contained under section 41(iv) of the Act taxed the recovery of bad debts

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)

depreciation on appreciation in the value of securities held as available for sale by treating the same for trading category. So ground No.6 is determined in favour of the assessee. Grounds No.7.1 & 7.2 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 30. The AO by invoking the provisions contained under section 41(iv) of the Act taxed the recovery of bad debts

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

iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à-vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial

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

iv. CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj) (para 15) v. CIT v.Holcim India (P.) Ltd.(I.T.A.No.486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015] 4 ITR-OL 246 (P&H) (para

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

iv) of the Act is not a stand alone section and is a corollary to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and its object is to put limitation on the amount of deduction which the assessee firm is otherwise entitled to under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act (Reference- decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

iv) of the Act is not a stand alone section and is a corollary to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and its object is to put limitation on the amount of deduction which the assessee firm is otherwise entitled to under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act (Reference- decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à- vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à- vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial