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

ii) While considering the claim for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii), the\nAssessing Officer should allow only such amount of bad debts written off as\nexceeds the credit balance available in the provision for bad and doubtful debt\naccount created under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The credit balance for\nthis purpose will be the opening

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

ii) While considering the claim for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii), the\nAssessing Officer should allow only such amount of bad debts written off as\nexceeds the credit balance available in the provision for bad and doubtful debt\naccount created under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The credit balance for\nthis purpose will be the opening

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

ii) While considering the claim for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii), the Assessing Officer should allow only such amount of bad debts written off as exceeds the credit balance available in the provision for bad and doubtful debt account created under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The credit balance for this purpose will be the opening

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

ii) While considering the claim for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii), the Assessing Officer should allow only such amount of bad debts written off as exceeds the credit balance available in the provision for bad and doubtful debt account created under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The credit balance for this purpose will be the opening

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

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

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 to P&L A/c to the tune of Rs. 455,78,00,000/- towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee computed the deduction claimed

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

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 to P&L A/c to the tune of Rs. 455,78,00,000/- towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessee computed the deduction claimed

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

36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section

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

36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section

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

36(1)(vii)\n(ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii) Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction

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

36(1)(vii)\n(ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii) Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction

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

36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section

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

36(1)(vii)\n(ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii) Disallowance under section 14A\n(iv) Restricting the deduction

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

36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed Rs.471,05,05,075/-.\n5. 1. The assessee agitated the matter before ld. CIT(A) and vehemently\ncontended that the assessee had written off bad debts of Rs.923.67 Crore\nafter reducing the opening credit balance in the provision for bad and\ndoubtful debts account u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs.452.61 Crores and claimed\nthe balance amount of Rs.471.06 Crores

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

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, being 20% of the profits derived from specified business. The Ld. AO disallowed the claim of the assesse on the following grounds:- i. The assessee has not maintained and submitted a separate set of books of account in respect of the eligible business. 26 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ii) alleged infirmity in the method of profit computation\nadopted by the assessee. However, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR\nthat the Act does not mandate the maintenance of separate books of account for\nclaiming deduction under section 36(1)(viii), nor does it prescribe any specific\nmethodology for computing eligible profits.\nThe method adopted

GOLDIAM JEWELLERY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CC 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms Padmavathy Svs. Acit – Cc 1(2) Goldiam Jewellery Ltd Mumbai. G-10, Ground Floor, Gems & Jewellery Complex Ii, Seeps Sez, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400096. Pan/Gir No. Aaccg3424F (Applicant) (Respondent)

II. Section 36(1) (vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Bad debts (Write off) - Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee-company engaged in manufacturing and trading of ceramics tiles, claimed provision made for doubtful debts Assessing Officer disallowed

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report