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

36(1)(viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on\n01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the\ndeduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on\nthis issue is deleted

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

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

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. 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 of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs. 175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia

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

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 of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs. 175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia

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

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

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

Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs. 175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia

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 of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) 5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed bad-debts amounting to Rs. 175,65,10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 36(1) shall be the difference\nbetween the bad debts written off by assessee in his books and the\nprovision made for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act.\nAccording to the AO, since opening credit balance in provision u/s\n36(1)(viia) of the Act exceeds the actual amount of bad debts written

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)(vii) of the Act, in earlier years. Accordingly, ground No.1 raised by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. Ground 2: Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia

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

section 36(1)(vii) of the\nAct, in earlier years.\nAccordingly, ground No.1 raised by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose.\nGround 2: Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

disallowances made by the AO. With regard to\nfresh claim made towards deduction under section 36(1)(viia) the CIT(A) rejected

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

disallowances made by the AO. With regard to\nfresh claim made towards deduction under section 36(1)(viia) the CIT(A) rejected

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso