STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees medical benefit fund 7 Disallowance of capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section

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

viii) without\nappreciating that deduction has been calculated after making deductions under\nall other clauses of 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

viii) without\nappreciating that deduction has been calculated after making deductions under\nall other clauses of 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 made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii

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 made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii

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 made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii

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

viii) without\nappreciating that deduction has been calculated after making deductions under\nall other clauses of 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 made towards bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) and towards restricting the deduction under section 36(1)(viii

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

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

Disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) – Rs.55,14,65,399/- 22. The Ld.AR submitted that deduction under section 36

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect

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.

VIII, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax, interest or fee; (d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the assessee specifying the Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee under clause (c); and (e) the amount

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, and further, whether other common expenses should be al- located in the final ratio of eligible to the ineligible income. (refer Ground No. 2.4 of the Concise Grounds of Appeal) d) Whether the Revenue was justified in making a disallowance

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

36(1) (viii) of the Act restricting the allowance only to the extent of ₹11 crores against the claim of deduction of ₹1,57,29,83,056/-. xii. Rejection of the revised claim of relief under Section 90 of the Act amounting to ₹120,42,42,761/- on increase in liability of Qatar Branch of the assessee. xiii. Disallowance

KOKAN MERCANTILA CO OP BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-20(2) , MUMBAI

In the result we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct to allow the deduction u/s

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Harbour Crest, 1St Floor, Mazagaon, Mumbai-400010. Pan: Aaaak2527P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-20(2), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.12.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

36(1) (viii) of the act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the interest charged of Rs.31, 598/- u/s 234B of the act is invalid and bad in law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the interest charged

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

1)(vii) of the Act, which findings have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 31. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee argued that this issue has also been decided by remitting the same back to the AO in assessee’s 37 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India own case for A.Y. 2004-05 (supra

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

1)(vii) of the Act, which findings have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 31. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee argued that this issue has also been decided by remitting the same back to the AO in assessee’s 37 ITA No.3685/M/2013 & ITA No.4951/M/2013 M/s. State Bank of India own case for A.Y. 2004-05 (supra

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

Section 147 of the income tax act 1961 considered the following additions:- a. disallowance of interest u/s 43D read with rule 6EA amounting to ₹ 50,596,549/– b. disallowance of write off of credit cards amounting to ₹ 476,331,562/– c. restriction of allowance of deduction u/s 36 (1) (viii

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

disallowances of depreciation on value of investments and re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), in respect of provisions of bad debts, as well as bad debt written off. 4. Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT-2, Mumbai has issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to explain