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

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

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

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

viia) as follows: "Rural branch" means a branch of a scheduled bank or a non-scheduled bank situated in a place which has a population of not more than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year." What is clear from the above

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

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

viia) as follows: "Rural branch" means a branch of a scheduled bank or a non-scheduled bank situated in a place which has a population of not more than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year." What is clear from the above

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

viia) of the Act. \nXXII. Deduction of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. \nXXIII. Addition of interest income on income-tax refund. \nXXIV. Dropping penalty proceeding initiated u/s.270A of the Act. \nXXV. Penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) on disallowance on deduction \nu/s.36(1)(viii) \n\n3. \nRelevant grounds for each of the assessment years, both in the \ncase

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

property and rights of the company: (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

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

property and rights of the company: (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

viia) of the act, although, the opening balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

viia) of the act, although, the opening balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee balance amount has already been allowed to the assessee u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1) (via) of the Act, in earlier assessment years. u/s 36(1

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

house property at Kolkata was\nvalued Rs 11,55,19,784/- by stamp value authorities.The valuation report\nclearly showed that the property was old since it was purchased in 1996\nand heavy repairs were needed.The assessee proposed to make a distress\nsale at lesser value of Rs 7 cr. to one Deepak Builder P.Ltd.The property\nconsisted of 32 flats. Copy

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

house property as the assessee has not challenged the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Having said so, the only issue arising for consideration before us is, whether the notional interest charged on interest free security deposit can be considered to be a part of the fair rent. On a plain reading of section 23(1

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

36(1)(viia) As seen the assessee has claimed Loss on transfer of retail loan portfolio amounting to Rs 65,51,06,135/-. The sale consideration is Rs 10.08,78,26,826 and the aggregate book value (net of provisions) of such loans stood at Rs 10,74,29,32,961 resulting in a net loss

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

36(1)(viia) of the Act, however, the department has not accepted the decision and is in appeal before Bombay High Court and the same is pending. In view of the above, since the department appeal is pending before the High Court for the AY 2005-06 and has not reached finality. It is noted that

ACIT -2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO stands dismissed

36(1)(viia) cannot be in excess of provision for bad debts actually made in the accounts. 11. In view of the very clear principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgments, we deem it fit to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue in the light

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

property and rights of the company; (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

property and rights of the company; (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai V/S Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Bank Of India Star House, C–5, G–Block Bandra Kurla Complex ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaacb0472C V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai

house. After calling upon the assessee to furnish the details relating to the working of deduction claimed and the basis thereof and examining them the Assessing Officer found that as per the working submitted by the assessee the eligible income is ` 200 crore. Further, on examining the working of the assessee, he found that basis for arriving at the allocable

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

House,\nN.M. Road, Ballard Pier,\nMumbai - 400001\nAppellant\nv/s\nM/s. Bank of America N.A,\nP.O. Box No.11506\nExpress Towers\nNariman Point\nMumbai - 400021\nPAN : AAACB1537G\nRespondent\nITA No.4154/MUM/2004\n(Assessment Year: 2000-01)\nM/s. Bank of America N.A,\nGround Floor, A Wing, One BKC,\nG Block, Bandra Kurla, Complex,\nBandra (East),\nMumbai - 400051\nPAN : AAACB1537G\nAppellant\nv/s\nJoint Director