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

56 taxmann.com 396 (Hyderabad - Trib.) and Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. vs. ADIT being order dated 2.04.2013 (ITA No. 1148/Chd/2011). Both the aforesaid cases were specifically concerned with similar provision created towards post retirement employee benefits on account of revision of AS-15. In both the cases the Tribunal has allowed

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

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

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

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

56,399 a) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned expenditure is related to business and is of revenue nature and accordingly. the same should have been allowed under section 37(1) of the Act.” 2.1 The revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

1)(ii) of the\nAct.\"\n36. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case\nand judicial pronouncements as noted above, we find merit in the claim of\nthe assessee and accordingly we direct the AO to grant the depreciation on\n\"customer relationship” and “distribution network” arising on account of\namalgamation under section

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

56,399\na) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned\nexpenditure is related to business and is of revenue nature and accordingly. the\nsame should have been allowed under section 37(1) of the Act.”\nThe revenue has raised the following grounds: -\nITA No. 683/Bang/2015\n“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is opposed

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

depreciation u/s.\n32 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\nis covered, against the assessee, by decisions of the coordinate benches, and\nhe does not, therefore, press the issue any further. Obviously, however, he\nretains his right to carry the matter

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

depreciation of Rs.38,02,913/- in the return of in the return of income income filed u/s 153A. 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an additional ground on 04.06.2025 ground on 04.06.2025, which is reproduced as under: which is reproduced as under

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

depreciation of Rs.38,02,913/- in the return of in the return of income income filed u/s 153A. 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an additional ground on 04.06.2025 ground on 04.06.2025, which is reproduced as under: which is reproduced as under

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

depreciation of Rs.38,02,913/- in the return of in the return of income income filed u/s 153A. 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an additional ground on 04.06.2025 ground on 04.06.2025, which is reproduced as under: which is reproduced as under

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

depreciation of Rs.38,02,913/- in the return of in the return of income income filed u/s 153A. 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an additional ground on 04.06.2025 ground on 04.06.2025, which is reproduced as under: which is reproduced as under

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

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 263 of the „Act‟. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the business of generation or generation and distribution of power had been brought within the sweep of Sec. 32(1)(iia), vide the „Finance Act, 2012‟ w.e.f. 01.04.2013, therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to claim the additional depreciation during the year under consideration

WIND WORLD INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 263 of the „Act‟. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the business of generation or generation and distribution of power had been brought within the sweep of Sec. 32(1)(iia), vide the „Finance Act, 2012‟ w.e.f. 01.04.2013, therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to claim the additional depreciation during the year under consideration

WIND WORLD WIND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 263 of the „Act‟. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the business of generation or generation and distribution of power had been brought within the sweep of Sec. 32(1)(iia), vide the „Finance Act, 2012‟ w.e.f. 01.04.2013, therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to claim the additional depreciation during the year under consideration

J.N INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 2, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No(S).2370/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Wind World India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit(C)-2, बिधम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera Desai Road, Veera Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabce5226C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 263 of the „Act‟. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the business of generation or generation and distribution of power had been brought within the sweep of Sec. 32(1)(iia), vide the „Finance Act, 2012‟ w.e.f. 01.04.2013, therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to claim the additional depreciation during the year under consideration