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)

disallow the aforesaid claims of deductions and recompute the total income in accordance with law. The Ld. AO may also initiate appropriate penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as the patently wrong claim of deductions has been made by the assessee under clause (vii) of sub section (1) of section (36) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Aggrieved

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 State Bank Of India Principal Commissioner Of Financial Reporting & Vs. Income Tax-2, Mumbai. Taxation Department, 3Rd Floor , Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan No. Aaacs8577K Appellant Respondent

2) of section 36 were not satisfied, the assessee's claim for deduction of bad debts written off from the account books was to be disallowed

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance following the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007- 08, wherein the CIT(A) had held that Explanation 2

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

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

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

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

FRIGORIFICO ALLANA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va) - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes (ii) [2017] 79 taxmann.com 305 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'E1 DCIT Vs Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd OCTOBER 31, 2016 Section 43B, read with sections 2

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

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

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