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

9. Ground No.2, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the disallowance of the claim for amortisation of the lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of the assessee. 10. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed Rs.4

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

9. Ground No.2, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the disallowance of the claim for amortisation of the lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of the assessee. 10. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed Rs.4

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

9. Ground No.2, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the disallowance of the claim for amortisation of the lease premium paid in respect of various leasehold properties of the assessee. 10. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed Rs.4

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

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

9 to the revised return of income on page 7 of the Paper Book – I. The AO disallowed these provisions on the basis that the same cannot be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act and the provisions of section 43B of the Act are applicable. 31. Out of the above, the CIT(A) allowed items mentioned

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

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

vii) of Rs.250,03,69,520 9.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. CIT ought to have appreciated that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) being a deduction linked to the total income computed is subject to revision each time the total income changes. In the present case, the balance under section

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

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

Depreciation on investment : 7255.27 v) Provision for other : 35148.30 vi) Provision for Tax : 81578.24 vii) Provision for Tax (Singapore Branch 150.00 569363.26 Less: i) Dividend (as per Comput.) : 4590.38 ii) Interest on Tax Free Bond (As per computation) :1957.45 iii) Bad Debts claimed in the computation of income : 383625.46 iv) 14A expenses : 21.79 390151.51 Book Profit 452138.89 Add: Adjustment made

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)

1% of the exempt interest and dividend income is to be disallowed. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the interest expenses of foreign offices are to be disallowed under section 14A. 3.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the investment in subsidiaries while computing the amount of 0.5% of average investment

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)

1% of the exempt interest and dividend income is to be disallowed. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the interest expenses of foreign offices are to be disallowed under section 14A. 3.5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the investment in subsidiaries while computing the amount of 0.5% of average investment

DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE GLOBALCOM.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, observed as under: “5. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the ld. A.R to drive home his aforesaid contention. Admittedly

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

9. The ground No.8 raised by the assessee is with regard to write off of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act in respect of non-rural advances. 9.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that both the parties mutually agreed that this issue has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

9. There are two aspects to this issue. In the first place, the ad hoc deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(b) being the last item on the computation of taxable business profits it cannot be taken into account at the time of allowing deduction under section 36(1)(vii), and, to that extent, the actual deduction attributable

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) relating to allowance of actual bad debts written off. g) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the Appellate orders passed for the AY 2002-03 to AY 2004-05 in Appellant's own case by the office of the learned CIT(A) have examined and analyzed in detail the provisions of section 41(1