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

viii) of the Act needs to be recomputed consequent to the increase in Total Income due to the additions made in course of the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and upheld during the subsequent appellate proceedings. 6. Disallowance of provision for loss in present value terms under debts relief scheme

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

viii) of the Act needs to be recomputed consequent to the increase in Total\nIncome due to the additions made in course of the assessment under section\n143(3) of the Act and upheld during the subsequent appellate proceedings.\n6. Disallowance of provision for loss in present value terms under debts relief\nscheme Rs.5,55,00,000/-\na) The learned

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.

VIII, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax, interest or fee; (d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the assessee specifying the Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee under clause (c); and (e) the amount

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, the AO has reduced the entire interest\non foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex-\npenditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi-\nnance i.e., the eligible business.\n(ii)\nAO has allocated depreciation

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, the AO has reduced the entire interest\non foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex-\npenditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi-\nnance i.e., the eligible business.\n(ii)\nAO has allocated depreciation

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, the AO has reduced the entire interest\non foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex-\npenditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi-\nnance i.e., the eligible business.\n(ii)\nAO has allocated depreciation

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, the AO has reduced the entire interest\non foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex-\npenditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi-\nnance i.e., the eligible business.\n(ii) AO has allocated depreciation

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, the AO has reduced the entire interest\non foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex-\npenditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi-\nnance i.e., the eligible business.\n(ii)\nAO has allocated depreciation

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, the AO has reduced the entire interest\non foreign currency borrowings and provision for contingencies as ex-\npenditure incurred for earning of income from long term housing fi-\nnance i.e., the eligible business.\n(ii)\nAO has allocated depreciation

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 grant of deduction under section 36(1) (viia) Rs.12,23,01,710. (f) Deduction under section 36(1) (viii

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

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

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

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

viii) of the Act in the order dated December 31, 2018 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 (interest on income-tax refund had been reduced in the earlier order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order passed on March 31, 2017) could be rectified vide an order under section 154 of the Act and is not a subject

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

viii. CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) (para 10) ix.CIT v.Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 88 of 2014 decided on 5-5-2014) (para 15) x. IT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (P&H) (para 15) , xi. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 28 (Delhi) (para 14) 5 1929/M/12-Kotak

ICICI BANK LTD. vs. DCIT RANGE 3(1),

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

section 36(1)(viii) (Para 14, Pages 7 & 8 of the CIT(A)(A) order) The CIT(A)(A) erred in removing the fund based commission and fees amounting to Rs.1,94,31,55,445/- instead of the non-fund based commission amounting to Rs.1,29,41,05,983/- from the business income to arrive at the income from finance

DCIT RG. 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

section 36(1)(viii) (Para 14, Pages 7 & 8 of the CIT(A)(A) order) The CIT(A)(A) erred in removing the fund based commission and fees amounting to Rs.1,94,31,55,445/- instead of the non-fund based commission amounting to Rs.1,29,41,05,983/- from the business income to arrive at the income from finance