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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

271 of 2014 vide order dated 23/08/2016 upheld the aforesaid findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. Similar issue has already been decided in assessee's own case on identical facts for preceding assessment year, therefore, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken, in the absence of any allegation of change in facts

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

271 of 2014 vide order dated 23/08/2016 upheld the aforesaid findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. Similar issue has already been decided in assessee's own case on identical facts for preceding assessment year, therefore, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken, in the absence of any allegation of change in facts

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

u/s. \n36(1)(viia) of the Act. \n\n29. This issue arises in the following appeals:\n\n Assessment year \nGround No. in \nAssessee's appeal \nGround No. in \nRevenue's appeal \n2018-19 \n- \n2 \n2019-20 \n- \n2 \n2020-21 \n- \n2 \n\n29. 1. In respect of this issue, assessee in its books of account had made

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Small Industries Income Tax Circle- Development Bank Of 3(3)(1) India Room No. 609, Sme Development Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, C-11, G- Block, Vs. M. K. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Churchgate, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400020. Pan: Aabcs3480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 36(1) (viia), the deduction is to be computed before making deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA of the Act. As such 5% of Rs.143,07,03,231/- was also required to be taken in to account while computing the deduction u/s.36(1) (viia). However, this was not done and therefore the same has resulted in underassessment

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11.\nWe heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11.\nWe heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C)\nare initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\"\n11. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR brought\nto our attention that a similar issue in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (ITA\nNo. 1439/Mum/2023 dated 13.03.2024) was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench\nwhere

DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD, THANE

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

u/s 36 (1) (viia) is of no relevance as the assessee has neither gone in appeal in its own case on quantum nor sought for the penalty appeal to be kept in abeyance till the outcome of the appeal in Mahalaxmi Coop Bank. The decision of the ITAT in Mahalaxmi was 9 ITA 2138/Mum/2018 CO 215/Mum/2019 in fact relied upon

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit-Circle 3(1) Icici Bank Limited बनाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor नाम/ नाम नाम Icici Bank Towers Aaykar Bhavan Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1195-H (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.127/Mum/2010 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5191/Mum/2009] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Icici Bank Limited Dcit-Circle 3(1) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.607, 6Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla Complex Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci 1195 H (""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप ""ा"ेप /Cross Objector) ""ा"ेप (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

viia) to submit that the computation made by the assessee was as per law. Reliance was placed on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal rendered in Oman International Bank V/s DCIT & CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26/11/2008 for the submissions that credit balance would be the opening balance i.e. the balance brought forward as on 1st April of the relevant accounting

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee and we confirm the same. This issue of Revenue’s appeal is also dismissed. 12. The next issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleing the disallowance of expenditure

THE THANE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD,THANE vs. ACIT CIR 3, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri P.K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-2010 The Thane District Central Co. Acit Cir 3 Op. Bank Ltd. 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Rd Vs. Shivaji Path, Thane (W) No. 167 Wagle Indl Estate Thane - 400601 Thane Pin:400604 Pan Aaaato739N (Appellant) Respondent)

section 271(l)(c) and if there is no guilty mind, no penalty can be levied. Further mere)) because the claim raised by appellant in return of income for bad and doubtful debt u/s. 36(1)(viia

THE UNITED WESTERN BANK LTD.,,SATARA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

36(1)(vii) from the total income computed before making deduction under clause (viia) and before deduction under chapter VIA and therefore, Bad Debts written off and allowable under clause (vii) must be deducted prior to provision. He failed to appreciate that provision can be made only after ascertaining income out of which it is to be made and hence

THE UNITED WESTERN BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

36(1)(vii) from the total income computed before making deduction under clause (viia) and before deduction under chapter VIA and therefore, Bad Debts written off and allowable under clause (vii) must be deducted prior to provision. He failed to appreciate that provision can be made only after ascertaining income out of which it is to be made and hence

THE UNITED WESTERN BANK LTD. (THROUGH SUCCESSORS IDBI BANK LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

36(1)(vii) from the total income computed before making deduction under clause (viia) and before deduction under chapter VIA and therefore, Bad Debts written off and allowable under clause (vii) must be deducted prior to provision. He failed to appreciate that provision can be made only after ascertaining income out of which it is to be made and hence

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2005-06 Order 682/2010-11 Mumbai passed 42 2867/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 07.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2006-07 u/s. 731/2010-11 Mumbai 271(1)(c)] 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the above table

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2005-06 Order 682/2010-11 Mumbai passed 42 2867/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 07.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2006-07 u/s. 731/2010-11 Mumbai 271(1)(c)] 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the above table

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2005-06 Order 682/2010-11 Mumbai passed 42 2867/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 07.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2006-07 u/s. 731/2010-11 Mumbai 271(1)(c)] 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the above table

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Penalty 41 2866/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 06.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2005-06 Order 682/2010-11 Mumbai passed 42 2867/Mum/2012 CIT(A)-I/IT- 07.02.2012 DCIT, Cir-1(1), 08.10.2010 271(1)(c) 2006-07 u/s. 731/2010-11 Mumbai 271(1)(c)] 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 24 and 39 to 42 in the above table

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)

Penalty proceedings initiated on this issue. 9. In view of the order passed under section 144C(1) followed by order passed under section 144C(5) of the I.T. Act 1961, total income, as provided under section 144C(13) read with section 1.43(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is computed and assessed as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Profits & Gains