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
ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
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
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147
270 (SC). The Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the assessee had claimed a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act pertaining to urban advances. The deduction was not allowed to the assessee on the basis that deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act can be allowed only to the extent
