DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

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

23,64,14,868/- out of bad-debts written of in earlier years and the same was not offered to tax. The assessee submitted that the bad-debts was not claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) in earlier years and therefore the amount recovered now is not offered to tax. The AO held that the amount recovered should

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

23,64,14,868/- out of bad-debts written of in earlier years and the same was not offered to tax. The assessee submitted that the bad-debts was not claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) in earlier years and therefore the amount recovered now is not offered to tax. The AO held that the amount recovered should

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

23(2)/23(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Vijaykumar S. Biyani Revenue by : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand Date of Hearing – 12.04.2022 Date of Order – 14/06/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 22/07/2021, passed under section 250 of the Income

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

disallowing deduction claimed by assessee under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being the amount of Bad Debts written off (other than in respect of rural advances). For this assessee raised the following ground No. 6: - “6. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of ₹1026,23

JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

section 37(1) the entire amount charged to the profit and loss account towards CSR expenditure including disallowing loss account towards CSR expenditure including disallowing loss account towards CSR expenditure including disallowing INR 18,20,000. The amount of INR 23

MEGGER INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

23 Off Link Road ……………. Appellant Behind Kuber Chambers Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 PAN – AAFCM9884N v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre ……………. Respondent Bengaluru 560 500 Assessee by : Shri Satish Mody Revenue by : Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR–CIT Date of Hearing – 05.05.2022 Date of Order – 09/05/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

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

disallowance made by the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business

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

disallowance made by the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business

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

disallowance made by the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business

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

disallowance made by the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 18. The assessee in the computation has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the extent of the least of 20% of profits derived from the eligible business

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

23,01,710. (f) Deduction under section 36(1) (viii) Rs. 138, 52, 06,494. (g) Allowance of Long-term Capital loss to the extent of Rs.502,62,44,256. (h) Excess allowance of deduction under section 36(1) (vii) of Rs.250, 03, 69,520. 1.2. The Pr. CIT erred in dismissing the Appellant's detailed submissions made vide letter

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of interest expenditure on borrowed funds for acquiring the shares of IILPL; and (3) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. 23

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of interest expenditure on borrowed funds for acquiring the shares of IILPL; and (3) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. 23

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of interest expenditure on borrowed funds for acquiring the shares of IILPL; and (3) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. 23

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of interest expenditure on borrowed funds for acquiring the shares of IILPL; and (3) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. 23

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of interest expenditure on borrowed funds for acquiring the shares of IILPL; and (3) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. 23

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1)(iii) of interest expenditure on borrowed funds for acquiring the shares of IILPL; and (3) Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. 23

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

disallowed and corresponding adjustment was made in order passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and claimed that in view of decision

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

23, no independent addition or disallowance was made in the regular assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. The CIT(A) recorded that only the income as processed under section 143(1