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

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

depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly. 46. 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

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

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

via) is also entitled for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) towards actual write off. The legislature restricts double deduction by proviso to section 36(1)(vii) where it is stated that the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision under section 36(1)(viia). On perusal of the provisions of section

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

via) is also entitled for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) towards actual write off. The legislature restricts double deduction by proviso to section 36(1)(vii) where it is stated that the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision under section 36(1)(viia). On perusal of the provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

VIA).\n(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

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

VIA and an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches. Thus the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) being a deduction linked to the total income computed it is subject to revision each time the total income changes viz. increases /decreases subject to the provision created in the books of accounts and that

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)

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act is held to be statutory allowance and cannot be considered as an ‘expenditure’ as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act for disallowance and on the same analogy interest paid on partner capital by the partnership firm cannot be considered as an expenditure u/s 14A of the Act is again misconceived as we have already

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)

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act is held to be statutory allowance and cannot be considered as an ‘expenditure’ as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act for disallowance and on the same analogy interest paid on partner capital by the partnership firm cannot be considered as an expenditure u/s 14A of the Act is again misconceived as we have already

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

via) the rural advances given by Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd.\n(BFIL) an NBFC which got amalgamated with the assessee company from the\nappointed date 01.01.2018 should be included. The CIT(A) gave partial relief to the\nassessee with regard to the various disallowances made by the AO. With regard to\nfresh claim made towards deduction under section 36(1

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

via) the rural advances given by Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd.\n(BFIL) an NBFC which got amalgamated with the assessee company from the\nappointed date 01.01.2018 should be included. The CIT(A) gave partial relief to the\nassessee with regard to the various disallowances made by the AO. With regard to\nfresh claim made towards deduction under section 36(1

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

VIA in the context of deduction, which is allowable u/s 10A of the Act is not permissible unless a specific statutory provision, to that effect, is made. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72, CIT vs Schmetz India (P.) Ltd. and Indus Infotech Servies (2014) 45 taxman.com

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

VIA in the context of deduction, which is allowable u/s 10A of the Act is not permissible unless a specific statutory provision, to that effect, is made. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 72, CIT vs Schmetz India (P.) Ltd. and Indus Infotech Servies (2014) 45 taxman.com

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

VIA, which comes into\nplay only after gross total income has been computed by applying\ncomputation provisions under various heads of income, including\nExplanation 2 to section 37(1) and, thus, there was no correlation\nbetween suo-moto disallowance in section 37(1) and claim of\ndeduction under section 80G Held, yes Whether Act permits\ndeduction of donations

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

VIA, which comes into\nplay only after gross total income has been computed by applying\ncomputation provisions under various heads of income, including\nExplanation 2 to Section 37(1) and, thus, there was no correlation\nbetween suo-moto disallowance in Section 37(1) and claim of\ndeduction under Section 80G Held, yes Whether Act permits\ndeduction of donations

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction ; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or subsection (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set off where

THE CITY COOPERTAVIE BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

VIA) and an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of such banks. The provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(1)(viia) are distinct and independent. The provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) are applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2007-08 to cooperative bank also. Therefore any provision allowed

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

VIA, which operates in a distinct statutory compartment. The Assessing Officer, having examined the claim and allowed it on this basis, adopted a view that is not only plausible but squarely supported by judicial precedent. 9. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The learned

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

depreciation of INR.5,88,509/-. Ground No. 2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. “3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses