SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are invoked in this case……....”. 14 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 17. From the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for rejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are invoked in this case……....”. 14 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 17. From the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for rejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are invoked in this case……....”. 14 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India 17. From the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for rejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are\ninvoked in this case .........\".\n17.\nFrom the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for\nrejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation and not on\nactual. However, it is noticed that the AO while rejecting the suo-motu\ndisallowance has not given any specific

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are\ninvoked in this case ........”.\n14\nITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/2023 & 2971-2970/M/2023\nSmall Industries Development Bank of India\n17.\nFrom the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for\nrejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation and not on\nactual. However

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are\ninvoked in this case .........".\n\n17.\nFrom the above observations of the AO, we notice that the basis for\nrejecting the suo-motu disallowance is that it is based on estimation and not on\nactual. However, it is noticed that the AO while rejecting the suo-motu\ndisallowance has not given

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso

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

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

194A(3), makes it clear that even Government of India considers the above entities separate and distinct from banking companies. Once under the Income Tax Act, Legislature itself has made a distinction for the aforesaid banks including the assessee are not covered as banking company, then, this further buttresses the point that these banks are separate and distinct from other

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

194A of the Act.\n\nv. As the case of the assessee was examined on\nthat aspect the explanation of the assessee was\nobtained and thereafter it was held by the\nlearned Assessing Officer that assessee has\ncommitted default by not deducting tax at\nsource on the amount of interest under Section\n194A of the Act paid to the originator

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

194A(3),\nmakes it clear that even Government of India under section 115JB of the\nIncome-tax Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1-4-2013, that is,\nfrom assessment year 2013-14 onwards, are not applicable to the banks\nconstituted as 'corresponding new bank' in terms of the Banking\nCompanies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings

ITO WD 30(1)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN vs. VAIDHYAKIYA VIBHAG KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No. 3737/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19)

194A of the Act that also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus cooperative society, which are entitled to claim deduction under the special provisions of Chapter VIA in the form of Section 80P of the Act? 2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case