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

2(24) (x) as well as\nprovisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act are not applicable to impugned expenditure of\nsalary, the deduction under section 37 of the Act is available, as it was incurred exclusively\nonly for the purpose of business.\nGROUND NO.6-Addition/ Disallowance

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(1), MUMBAI vs. KETAN ANIL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Ketan Anil Shah Income-Tax 19(1), Mumbai, 44/B Rajul Apartment Vs. Matru Mandir, Room No.203, J Mehta Marg, Napean Sea Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 Road, Mumbai-400 006 Pan No. Aaips 9400 J Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Anish Shah, Ca & Shri Haridas Bhat Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2023

section 36(2) of the Act is write off the debt as irrecoverable in the books of account of the of the Act is write off the debt as irrecoverable in the books of account of the of the Act is write off the debt as irrecoverable in the books of account of the assessee for claiming deduction u/s. 36

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

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

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

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

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

2 and 3 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A appreciating the fact that no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule appreciating the fact

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 thereon, the AO was of the opinion that a plain reading of\nthe aforementioned provisions leaves no doubt that the legislature\ndid not intend to differentiate between rural and non-rural bad debts for\nthe purpose of proviso to clause (vii). According to the AO deduction\navailable under clause (vii) of Section 36(1) shall be the difference\nbetween

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

sections": [ "14A", "8D", "36(1)(vii)", "36(2)", "28", "37(1)", "23(5)", "44AE" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowances

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

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

disallowance of bad debts written off on account of credit card business\nmade by the AQ without appreciating the fact and position of law that the bad debts\nallowable on advances made as per provisions of section 36(2

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

36 of the IT Act are allowable. Thus, a position hus, a position emerges that the intent of the Legislature was not to emerges that the intent of the Legislature was not to emerges that the intent of the Legislature was not to blankly disallow every CSR expenditure. blankly disallow every CSR expenditure. Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. Jeevandeep Edumedia

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

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

2 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

2 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

36 Football 1 Federation 62 Taxmann.com 362 (Del Trib) dealing with a 2 (Del Trib) dealing with a case of an Association having as its object the promoting of the game of case of an Association having as its object the promoting of the game of case of an Association having as its object the promoting of the game

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

disallowance\nof bad debts written off.\n28. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record, are: In the return of income, the assessee claimed Rs.2356.44\ncrore as bad debt written off is allowable as a deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee\nsubmitted that

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

disallowance\nof bad debts written off.\n28. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from\nthe record, are: In the return of income, the assessee claimed Rs.2356.44\ncrore as bad debt written off is allowable as a deduction under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee\nsubmitted that

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

2) of the Act.\nThe assessee also claimed an amount of Rs.81,73,55,929/- as provision for\ndoubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The\nAO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject to the\nrestriction as per the proviso to the said

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

2) of the Act.\nThe assessee also claimed an amount of Rs.81,73,55,929/- as provision for\ndoubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The\nAO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject to the\nrestriction as per the proviso to the said