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

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of provision for pension. The CIT(A) upheld the decision of the AO. The assessee bank has claimed that the provision for pension made by it in its books of account is an accrued liability that should be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. The assessee bank has also

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

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

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

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

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

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 section where it cannot exceed the credit\nbalance in the provision

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

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 section where it cannot exceed the credit\n5\nITA

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

disallowance of Rs. 54,93,734/- on account of employees' contribution to Provident Fund was made at the stage of processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act, based on the date of payment as reflected in clause 20(b) of Form 3CD. It is also not in dispute that during the course of processing under section

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 54,93,734/- on account of employees' contribution to Provident Fund was made at the stage of processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act, based on the date of payment as reflected in clause 20(b) of Form 3CD. It is also not in dispute that during the course of processing under section

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 54,93,734/- on account of employees' contribution to Provident Fund was made at the stage of processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act, based on the date of payment as reflected in clause 20(b) of Form 3CD. It is also not in dispute that during the course of processing under section

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

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 section where it cannot exceed the credit\nbalance in the provision

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

1,160,35,01,455/- in the normal computation of total income and further same was also added to the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. iii. Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets of ₹27,31,73

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

disallowance of Rs. 54,93,734/- on account of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund was made at the stage of processing of return under section 143(1) of the Act, based on the date of payment as reflected in clause 20(b) of Form 3CD. It is also not in dispute that during the course of processing under section

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 us. 144 is to be restricted to the exempt income, where as in Finance Act 2022, explanation to Section 14A has been inserted which provides for applicability of the said section even in the absence of exempt income, which being clarificatory in nature has retrospective effect? (Tax Effects: Rs. 1,56,73

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), 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 us. 144 is to be restricted to the exempt income, where as in Finance Act 2022, explanation to Section 14A has been inserted which provides for applicability of the said section even in the absence of exempt income, which being clarificatory in nature has retrospective effect? (Tax Effects: Rs. 1,56,73

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

disallowance against the weighted deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act by the Appellant. 7.2 In disregarding the various other binding judgements of the ITAT and Hon'ble High Court which squarely applies to the Appellant's case with regard to allowability of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) which are in relation to expenses incurred by DSIR

ACIT - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PROGRESSIVE SHARE BROKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

disallowance under section 14A for the year under consideration is restricted to that has been suo motu offered by the assessee in the return of income. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the assessee. Now coming to the appeal of the Revenue : I. T. A. No. 3660/M/2014 14. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal "1

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

73,949/- was disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), against which the appeal is pending before the Tribunal . & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 The CIT(A) held that for the assessment year 2009-10 , The CIT(A) has held that the AO was justifying in invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act and working out disallowance

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

73,949/- was disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), against which the appeal is pending before the Tribunal . & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 The CIT(A) held that for the assessment year 2009-10 , The CIT(A) has held that the AO was justifying in invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act and working out disallowance