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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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(1)(vii) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that

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(1)(vii) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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(1)(vii) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that

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(1)(vii) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

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

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

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

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT &\nMS PADMAVATHY S, AM\nI.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2014-15)\nI.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2015-16)\nI.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\nI.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18)\nI.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\nDy. Commissioner of Income\nTax, Circle-3(3)(1),\nRoom No. 609, Aayakar

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

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Small Industries Development Bank Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), of India, Room

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

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT &\nMS PADMAVATHY S, AM\nI.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2014-15)\nI.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2015-16)\nI.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2016-17)\nI.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18)\nI.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023\n(Assessment Year: 2018-19)\nDy. Commissioner of Income\nTax, Circle-3(3)(1),\nRoom No. 609, Aayakar

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

36(1)(viii). Further we notice\nthat the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years has held the\nimpugned issue in favour of the assessee on that ground that the revenue has\naccepted the deduction and the principle of consistency should be applied. In view\nof these discussions and considering the judicial precedence we hold that there

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

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Small Industries Development Bank Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), of India, Room

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

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Small Industries Development Bank Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), of India, Room

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

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2943/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2894/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2893/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 3160/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 3173/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Small Industries Development Bank Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), of India, Room

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

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

Disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) – Rs.55,14,65,399/-\n22. The Ld.AR submitted that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act is\nallowed in respect of the profits derived from the eligible business computed under\nthe head Profits and Gains from Business and Profession. During the year under\nconsideration the assesse transferred R.60

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

36 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore Accordingly, the Ground 2 of revenue is dismissed. Ground 3 : Relief in respect of addition under section 14A 38. During impugned assessment year the assessee earned Rs. 1,49,50,000/- on interest earned on tax free bonds and Rs. 24,23,27,401/- on dividends from

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)

v. Jwala Prasad Tiwari (1953) 24 ITR 537 (Bom) and Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj)] Such state of law prevailed up to and including the assessment year 1988-89. However, by insertion (with effect from April 1, 1989) of a new Explanation in section 36(1)(vii), it has been clarified that

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.

1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that ■ sections 28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly