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

section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Provided that in the case of a bank to which clause (viia) applies, the amount of the deduction relating to any such debt or part thereof shall be limited to the amount

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

section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Provided that in the case of a bank to which clause (viia) applies, the amount of the deduction relating to any such debt or part thereof shall be limited to the amount

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. The reasons for reopening are as under:- “In this case, return of income was filed on 28.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1602,66,91,910/-under normal provisions. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return on 24.02.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 1609,22,64,610/-. Assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) dt 17.02.2016 determining total income

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. The reasons for reopening are as under:- “In this case, return of income was filed on 28.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1602,66,91,910/-under normal provisions. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return on 24.02.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 1609,22,64,610/-. Assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) dt 17.02.2016 determining total income

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

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings. The reasons for reopening are as under:- “In this case, return of income was filed on 28.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1602,66,91,910/-under normal provisions. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return on 24.02.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 1609,22,64,610/-. Assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) dt 17.02.2016 determining total income

NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED (ON BEHALF OF MERGED ENTITY VADINAR OIL TERMINAL LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 36 (2) (I) of the act. The learned authorised representative specifically referred to paragraph number three of the Page 28 of 66 ITA No 778/MUM/2022 Nayara Energy Limited [ On behalfof VadinarOil Terminal Limited] V ACIT Central Circle -2 (1), Mumbai AY 2017-18 order wherein based on the earlier decisions referred the honourable High Court in paragraph number

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and to reassess the income after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being

PID P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

section 147 of the Income tax Act. 1961.” 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce the parties from whom the assessee purchases the material, so that genuineness of transaction can be verified by cross-examination. The observed that the assessee could not produce the parties from whom the assessee purchased the material. The AO recorded that

DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

36(1)(va), even if paid before the return-filing due date. 5 ITA 1093/Mum/2025 ITA 992/Mum/2025 Yes Bank Ltd However, it was contended that the said ruling was not applicable at the time the disallowance was made under Section 143(1), and that the CPC, Bengaluru, was bound by the binding decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

36(1)(va), even if paid before the return-filing due date. 5 ITA 1093/Mum/2025 ITA 992/Mum/2025 Yes Bank Ltd However, it was contended that the said ruling was not applicable at the time the disallowance was made under Section 143(1), and that the CPC, Bengaluru, was bound by the binding decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

36(1)(viia) and in respect of foreign exchange rate difference. Neither in the first order of reassessment dated 22 February 2000 nor in the second order of reassessment dated 26 March 2002 were these aspects determined. In other words on the aforesaid three issues, the original order of assessment dated 10 March 1999 passed under Section

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

reassessment order passed u/s 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the income tax act 1961 considered the following additions:- a. disallowance of interest u/s 43D read with rule 6EA amounting to ₹ 50,596,549/– b. disallowance of write off of credit cards amounting to ₹ 476,331,562/– c. restriction of allowance of deduction u/s 36

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

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

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

section (6), section (6),— (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, person and held to be the income of another person, person and held

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhcentral Bank Of India D C I T - 2(1)(2) 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent Ac I T - 2(1)(2) Central Bank Of India Room No. 562, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent

36(1)(viia). A reading of the Circulars issued by CBDT indicates that normally a deduction for bad debt(s) can be allowed only if the debt is written off in the books as bad debt(s). No deduction is allowable in respect of a mere provision for bad and doubtful debt(s). But in the case of rural advances

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhcentral Bank Of India D C I T - 2(1)(2) 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Nariman Point M.K. Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent Ac I T - 2(1)(2) Central Bank Of India Room No. 562, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacc2498P Appellant Respondent

36(1)(viia). A reading of the Circulars issued by CBDT indicates that normally a deduction for bad debt(s) can be allowed only if the debt is written off in the books as bad debt(s). No deduction is allowable in respect of a mere provision for bad and doubtful debt(s). But in the case of rural advances

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

Reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2020-21 With reference to the above With reference to the above subject and under the instructions subject and under the instructions of our above named client, we would like to submit as under; of our above named client, we would like to submit as under; of our above named client, we would like

JT. CIT -(OSD)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Central Bank Of India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax – 2(1) Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Jt. Cit (Osd)-2(1)(2) Vs. Central Bank Of India R.No.561, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Chandermukhi Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By Shri V. Sreekar Date Of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3739/Mum/2018 & 3673/Mum/2018 For A.Y.2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Dcit2(1) It- 44/Tr.4/16-17 Dated 30/01/2018 (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 25/03/2014 By The Ld. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

36(1)(viia). A reading of the Circulars issued by CBDT indicates that normally a deduction for bad debt(s) can be allowed only if the debt is written off in the books as bad debt(s). No deduction is allowable in respect of a mere provision for bad and doubtful debt(s). But in the case of rural advances