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

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee bank. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated for filing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 30. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue, by observing as follows: - “16.5 After considering the assessment order, submissions of the appellant and the relevant

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

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee bank.\nPenalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated for filing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income.”\n30. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised\nby the assessee on this issue, by observing as follows:\n“16.5 After considering the assessment order, submissions of the appellant\nand

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

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

via) is also entitled for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) towards actual write off. The legislature restricts double deduction by proviso to section 36(1)(vii) where it is stated that the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision under section 36(1)(viia). On perusal of the provisions of section

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

via) is also entitled for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) towards actual write off. The legislature restricts double deduction by proviso to section 36(1)(vii) where it is stated that the deduction under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision under section 36(1)(viia). On perusal of the provisions of section

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

disallowance is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier years has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions account

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 is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier years has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions account

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 is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier years has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions account

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

disallowance is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot\nexceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section\n36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier\nyears has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions\naccount

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

disallowance is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot\nexceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section\n36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier\nyears has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions\naccount

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

disallowance is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot\nexceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section\n36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier\nyears has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions\naccount

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 is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier years has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions account

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

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

disallowed by the Appellant in the computation of income as the same pertained to book loss on sale of investments which is taxed under the head capital gains as per the provision of the Act. 5. Deduction allowed under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs.159,22,24,604 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DIPEN KUMARPAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. NFAC- DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

36(1)(via) of the Act on account of employees contribution to PF/ESI. It was held by the on account of employees contribution to PF/ESI. It was held by the on account of employees contribution to PF/ESI. It was held by the Tribunal that disallowance of employees contribution to PF/ESI was Tribunal that disallowance of employees contribution to PF/ESI

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted. paid on HTM securities be deleted. GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND ON SECTION 36(1)(viia) OF THE ACT: ON SECTION 36(1)(viia

DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted. paid on HTM securities be deleted. GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND ON SECTION 36(1)(viia) OF THE ACT: ON SECTION 36(1)(viia

M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 The State Bank Of India Asst. Cit Circle-Patiala, (Successor To State Bank Of Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Patiala), Patiala-147001 Dgm & Cfo, Sbi, Local Head Office – Chandigarh, 2Nd Floor, Sector 17A, Chandigarh- 160017. Pan No. Aaccs 0143 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved & Mr. Ninadpatade, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023

36(1)(viia) of the Act. This ground of appeal deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. This grou deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. This grou is, therefore, dismissed. is, therefore, dismissed.” 12. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, if this expenditure is incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act, the same shall only be allowed as deduction only against the exempt income u/s 14A of the Act or in other words , such interest