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

vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on\nthis issue is deleted. As a result, Ground No.5, raised in assessee's appeal, is\nallowed.\n40. Ground No.6, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the applicability\nof the provisions of section 115-JB of the Act to the assessee bank.\n41. During the hearing

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

vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on\nthis issue is deleted. As a result, Ground No.5, raised in assessee's appeal, is\nallowed.\n40. Ground No.6, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to the applicability\nof the provisions of section 115-JB of the Act to the assessee bank.\n41. During the hearing

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of shares of\nprivate companies only but not "any property” as mentioned in the\nsection 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The AO further observed that\nexplanation applicable to section 56(2)(viia) is only related to \"fair\nmarket value” as described in the explanation to section 56(2)(vii)\nof the Act, not the other explanations.\nThe

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

vii) of Sec.36(1) therefore shall limit the application to both rural advances and non-rural advances. Therefore, there cannot be double deduction i.e. one on provision basis and then again on actual write-off basis separately and independently. The disallowance is accordingly confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed." 14.4 In view of the above decision

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

56,04,580/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 27.03.2000 determining the total income at Rs.2433,18,77,427/-. The ITAT vide order dated 29.04.2016 in ITA No. 3823-24/Mum/2005 allowed certain grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee and restored the matter on the remaining grounds to the file

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)

vii) of Sec.36(1) therefore shall limit the application to both rural advances and non-rural advances. Therefore, there cannot be double deduction i.e. one on provision basis and then again on actual writeoff basis separately and independently. The disallowance is accordingly confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed." 14.4 In view of the above decision of CIT(A), claim

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)

vii) of Sec.36(1) therefore shall limit the application to both rural advances and non-rural advances. Therefore, there cannot be double deduction i.e. one on provision basis and then again on actual writeoff basis separately and independently. The disallowance is accordingly confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed." 14.4 In view of the above decision of CIT(A), claim

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

disallow the deduction to 10% of rural advances of ₹122.30 crores which were not rural branches ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 vi. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act of ₹138,52,06,494/- which should have been restricted to ₹961,47,93,509/- being 20% of allowable deduction. vii. Excess allowances of long-term

JOSEPH MUDALIAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 18. Having held so, the second aspect of the issue which requires consideration is whether the exception to section 50C(1) by way of third proviso and section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The issue is no more res integra in view of a number of decisions of different

HBS VIEW PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

1. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 76,66,066/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was related to the excess interest claimed by the assessee under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act and the interest claimed was not exclusively linked

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

vii) was inserted w.e.f. 1 October 2009 to tax the receipt of money or any property whose value exceeds Rs. 50,000 without consideration or for inadequate consideration by any individual or HUF subject to certain exclusions. sub section 2 clause (viia) was inserted w.e.f. 1 June 2010 to tax the receipt of shares of a closely held company whose

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

56,399 a) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned expenditure is related to business and is of revenue nature and accordingly. the same should have been allowed under section 37(1) of the Act.” 2.1 The revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) in respect of non-rural advances. 19. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, are: During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of write-offs of non-rural branch advances amounting to Rs. 1334,21,65,835. The AO vide order passed under section

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) in respect of non-rural advances. 19. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to this issue, are: During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of write-offs of non-rural branch advances amounting to Rs. 1334,21,65,835. The AO vide order passed under section

JALALUDDIN MOHAMMED ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1)(4) MUMBAI, BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jalaluddin Mohammed Ali Khan, Ito Ward-26(1)(4), A/9 Sharif Market Laxminarayan Pratyakshakar Bhavan C-11 Vs. Mandir Road, Off Kherani Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakinaka, S.O. Bandra East, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Anppk 9394 P Appellant Respondent

section 56(1)(vii) of the Act, benefit of first proviso cannot be first proviso cannot be allowed in the case of the assessee and accordingly he sustained the in the case of the assessee and accordingly he sustained the in the case of the assessee and accordingly he sustained the disallowance

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

56. The above submissions were also made before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. However, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has objected to the said submission on the ground that w.e.f. 01.04.2008, the provisions of s. 195 had undergone some changes according to which, it is not in discretion of the assessee or its chartered

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

disallowed.” 56. We noted that for the year under consideration the assessee has not claimed any deduction for bad debts written-off. However, it should be allowed deduction in respect of write-offs of non-rural branch advances amounting to Rs. 1026 crore. Before us Revenue has emphasised that deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is available

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

56,399\na) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned\nexpenditure is related to business and is of revenue nature and accordingly. the\nsame should have been allowed under section 37(1) of the Act.”\nThe revenue has raised the following grounds: -\nITA No. 683/Bang/2015\n“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is opposed