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

section 36(1)(iii) of the\nAct. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.160,77,00,000 claimed\nas deduction and added the same to the total income of the assessee.\n63. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, deleted the addition made by\nthe AO on this issue, by observing as follows:-\n\"10.4.1 It is observed that

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the\nAct. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.160,77,00,000 claimed\nas deduction and added the same to the total income of the assessee.\n63. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, deleted the addition made by\nthe AO on this issue, by observing as follows: -\n\"10.4.1 It is observed that

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

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

iv) (or clause (iva) or clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 36, or as required by or under any other law for the time being in force." 7. In plain terms, sub-section (9) of section 40A disallows

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

iv) (or clause (iva) or clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 36, or as required by or under any other law for the time being in force." 7. In plain terms, sub-section (9) of section 40A disallows

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

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 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv

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 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv

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 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv

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 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv

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

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.

disallowance of section 143(1) (a) (iv). When the due date under Explanation to section 36(1) (va) is judicially

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

disallowance to the suo-moto disallowance offered by the assessee and the\nsaid relief has not been considered by the CIT (A). 4. The Id. AR with regard to the plea that\ndisallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance, submitted that the\nassessee has investments which are in the nature of stock in trade and also are strategic

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

section 14A of the Act. For instance, if the total cost\nincurred for conducting the Board meeting is Rs. 10 lakhs and out of the total 20 agendas\nin the Board meeting, 5 agendas pertains to subsidiary associate and joint venture\ncompanies, 1/4th i.e. (5/20) cost of the Board meeting viz., Rs. 2.5 lakhs would be\nattributed as amount

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

Section 36(1) (vii). iii. Failed to disallow the provision for depreciation on investment amounting to ₹46,19,11,355/-. iv

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed interest under\nsection 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs.52,62,28,121 as against the claim of the\nassessee that it has short claimed the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) in the\nreturn of income with notes for Rs. 11,36,88,893. For ease of reference, the\ndeduction claimed by the assessee in the return

DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX-17(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA STATE SECURITY CORPORATION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

36(1 )(va), in the manner below: 5 ITAs 1836 & 1837/Mum/2022 Maharashtra State Security Corporation S.No Nature of fund Sum received Due date (as Actual Date of payment to received from from per PF/ESI the concerned Authorities employees Employees Act) 9.6 Thus, it can be seen that Section 143(1 )(a)(iv) (inserted by Finance Act, 2016) provides that disallowance