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

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. 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

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

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

GOLDIAM JEWELLERY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CC 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms Padmavathy Svs. Acit – Cc 1(2) Goldiam Jewellery Ltd Mumbai. G-10, Ground Floor, Gems & Jewellery Complex Ii, Seeps Sez, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400096. Pan/Gir No. Aaccg3424F (Applicant) (Respondent)

disallowed same under explanation to clause (vii) of section 36(1) - Whether, since assessee-company has debited provision made in respect of doubtful debts to profit and loss account and also reduced same amount in balance sheet from sundry debtors/trade receivable, such simultaneous reduction from sundry debtors amounted to actual write off of debt and hence same

ASIA TODAY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (IT) 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) was called for. Similar view was also held in the case of ACIT vs. Manish Dutta in 2011 – TMI-204199-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai in ITA No.4017/Mum/2010 dated 17.6.2011 wherein the ITAT held that in view of the specific provision of Explanation 2, clause (v) of section 9(1

BANK OF BARODA (ERSTWHILE DENA BANK ),MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE -2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. On verification of details of\nthe claim, the AO observed that against the provision made for doubtful debts u/s.\n36(1)(viia) of the Act, the assessee had adjusted debts relating to rural branches.\nWhereas, the debts relating to non-rural branches have not been adjusted against the\nprovision so made. According

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

vii) of Rs.250,03,69,520 9.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. CIT ought to have appreciated that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) being a deduction linked to the total income computed is subject to revision each time the total income changes. In the present case, the balance under section

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

disallowing the appellant‟s claim in respect of depreciation of Rs.9,43,69,363 on leased assets. 5. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of Rs.1334,21,65,835 5.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of Rs. 1334,21,65,835, under section 36(1)(vii) being the amount of bad debts written-off (other than

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

disallowing the appellant‟s claim in respect of depreciation of Rs.9,43,69,363 on leased assets. 5. Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of Rs.1334,21,65,835 5.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of Rs. 1334,21,65,835, under section 36(1)(vii) being the amount of bad debts written-off (other than

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

9. Your Appellant prays that the disallowance made in the impugned order is invalid and bad in law an order is invalid and bad in law and facts and hence the same may d facts and hence the same may please be deleted. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that during the relevant Briefly stated, facts

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

Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. – Rs.13,01,85,558/- Ground 2(a) to 2(h): Deduction U/s 36(1)(vii) on the balance outstanding in respect of rural advance. 7. The issue is inter-connected with Ground 1; so the issue is covered in favour of the assesse in consolidated order

JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

VII of the Companies Act, 2013, they cease to qualify as voluntary Companies Act, 2013, they cease to qualify as voluntary Companies Act, 2013, they cease to qualify as voluntary donations. The exclusion for deduction u/s80G of the Act for donations. The exclusion for deduction u/s80G of the Act for donations. The exclusion for deduction u/s80G

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

9(1)(vii) of the Act\nread with either Article 12 or Article 22/23 of the corresponding\nDTAAs as FTS or Other Income, respectively. Since the Assessee\nhad failed to deduct tax from the same in terms of Section 195\nof the Act, the Assessing Officer made disallowance

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

9,076/- remained unpaid as on the due date of filing of return of income. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of section 43B of the Act and disallowed the said amount. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. He (29) ITA No. 6663, 6701, 6702 & 6703 /Mum/2025 Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited held that