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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act observed as\nfollows: -\n\"16 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and\nperused the relevant material on record. As far as argument of rule of\nconsistency is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contention of the\nassessee following the decision

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) in earlier years is not taxable.\nAccordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made in this regard.\"\n5.2 Respectfully following the findings of the coordinate bench, we direct the AO to\ndelete the impugned addition. Ground No. 2 is allowed.\"\n11. Ground No. 2 with its sub-grounds are accordingly allowed.\n12. Ground No. 3 relates

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

vii) computed by taking ward as basis for\nidentifying a rural branch:\n10. Further, the assesse claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) taking ward\nas basis for identifying a rural branch. The Ld.AR stated that the said issue is\ndecided against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case\nof CIT vs Lord Krishna

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

vii) computed by taking ward as basis for identifying a rural branch: 10. Further, the assesse claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viia) taking ward as basis for identifying a rural branch. The Ld.AR stated that the said issue is 19 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore decided against the assessee by the decision

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

36(1)(vii). then if the\namount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference\nbetween the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits\nand gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of\nthe previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

36(1)(vii). then if the\namount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference\nbetween the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits\nand gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of\nthe previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances

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

36(1)(vii). then if the\namount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference\nbetween the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits\nand gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of\nthe previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

36(1)(vii). then if the\namount subsequently recovered on any such debt is greater than the difference\nbetween the debt and the amount so allowed, the excess shall be deemed to be profits\nand gains of business and, accordingly, chargeable to income-tax as the income of\nthe previous year in which it is recovered. In the circumstances

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. 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

depreciation of Rs.9,43,69,363 on leased assets. 5. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of Rs.1334,21,65,835 5.1 The learned

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 of Rs.9,43,69,363 on leased assets. 5. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of Rs.1334,21,65,835 5.1 The learned

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

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. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

1)(vii) of the Act in light of decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 166. We find that similar issue had arose in assessee‟s own case for A.Y.2001-02 and 2002-03 wherein this Tribunal vide its order dated 12/07/2021 had restored the issue to the file

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