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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of bad debts written off. 28. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: In the return of income, the assessee claimed Rs.2356.44 crore as bad debt written off is allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that

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 of bad debts written off. 28. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: In the return of income, the assessee claimed Rs.2356.44 crore as bad debt written off is allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

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

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

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

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 is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier years has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions account

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 is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier years has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions account

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 is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier years has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions account

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 is that the bad-debts claimed under section 36(1)(vii) cannot exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in earlier years has established the fact that there is no credit balance in the provisions account

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed Rs.471,05,05,075/-.\n5. 1. The assessee agitated the matter before ld. CIT(A) and vehemently\ncontended that the assessee had written off bad debts of Rs.923.67 Crore\nafter reducing the opening credit balance in the provision for bad and\ndoubtful debts account u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs.452.61 Crores and claimed\nthe balance amount of Rs.471.06 Crores

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-8(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Shamrock Pharmachemi Room No.624, Pvt.Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Off Dr. E Moses Road Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs6290H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 28/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Two Appeals Filed By Revenue In Ita Nos. 862 & 863/Mum/2018 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai In Appeals No.Cit(A)-14/It-170/15-16 & Cit(A)-14/It- 119/16-17, Dated 27/11/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/08/2016 By The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was found uncalled for. 36. The expression "fees for technical services" has been defined in Explanation (2) of Section 9(1)(vii

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

9 to the revised return of income on page 7 of the Paper Book – I. The AO disallowed these provisions on the basis that the same cannot be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act and the provisions of section 43B of the Act are applicable. 31. Out of the above, the CIT(A) allowed items mentioned

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

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

section 9(1 )(vii) of the Act. 11.4 In the light of the above discussion, it is found that both the services cannot be treated as FTS under India-Singapore DTAA and hence, are not liable to tax in India. Accordingly, the amount cannot be disallowed

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

section 9(1 )(vii) of the Act. 11.4 In the light of the above discussion, it is found that both the services cannot be treated as FTS under India-Singapore DTAA and hence, are not liable to tax in India. Accordingly, the amount cannot be disallowed

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

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was found uncalled for. 36. The expression "fees for technical services" has been defined in Explanation (2) of Section 9(1)(vii

M/S. SATELITE TELEVISION ASIAN REGION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (INT. I.T) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are partly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the above view, in the draft Assessment Order dated 25th March, 2013 passed under Section 144C of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

vii) or under Section 9 (1) (i). Accordingly, disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a) (i) is directed to be deleted

DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

vii) or under Section 9 (1) (i). Accordingly, disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a) (i) is directed to be deleted