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 towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii

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 towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

36(1)(viia). Disallowance of depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section

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

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

36(1)(viia). Disallowance of depreciation on Automated Tailor Machine (ATM) and 3 other computer peripherals by reclassifying as Plant & Machinery Disallowance of certain liabilities by treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section

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

disallowance of bad debts written off. 28. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: In the return of income, the assessee claimed Rs.2356.44 crore as bad debt written off is allowable as a deduction under section 36

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

disallowance of bad debts written off. 28. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: In the return of income, the assessee claimed Rs.2356.44 crore as bad debt written off is allowable as a deduction under section 36

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

disallowance of provision towards gratuity which was squarely covered by the provision of section 40A(7) of the Act. Further, it is clarified that section 40A(9) of the Act will not be applicable since the provision is not towards contribution to any pension fund. We are of the view that sections 36

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii)/under section 37(1) of the Act; and (2) Disallowance of interest

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

section 36(1) which includes the claim of deductions u/s 36(1)\n(viia)(c) also. - AY 2016-17, and AY 2017-18\nAssessee's Appeal – Issues contended\n(i) Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

section 36(1) which includes the claim of deductions u/s 36(1)\n(viia)(c) also. - AY 2016-17, and AY 2017-18\nAssessee's Appeal – Issues contended\n(i) Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

section 36(1) which includes the claim of deductions u/s 36(1)\n(viia)(c) also. - AY 2016-17, and AY 2017-18\n\nAssessee's Appeal – Issues contended\n\n(i) Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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)

disallow the aforesaid claims of deductions and recompute the total income in accordance with law. The Ld. AO may also initiate appropriate penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as the patently wrong claim of deductions has been made by the assessee under clause (vii) of sub section (1) of section (36

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 State Bank Of India Principal Commissioner Of Financial Reporting & Vs. Income Tax-2, Mumbai. Taxation Department, 3Rd Floor , Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan No. Aaacs8577K Appellant Respondent

section 36 were not satisfied, the assessee's claim for deduction of bad debts written off from the account books was to be disallowed