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

36(1)(viia) applies to the Assessee and also the fact the amount of deduction relating to bad debts written off is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. In the case of the Assessee there is no dispute that there

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

36(1)(viia) applies to the Assessee and also the fact the amount of deduction relating to bad debts written off is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. In the case of the Assessee there is no dispute that there

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

36(1) (va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

36(1) (va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023

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

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

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

36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha

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

36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14 (2)(1), MUMBAI

36(1)(viia) of the Act.\n9. Section 143(1) of the Act as applicable to the relevant assessment\nyear was introduced by way of substitution of the earlier Section\n143(1) by the new Section 143(1) by the Finance Act, 2008. The\nnew Section 143(1) provided for computation of total income after\nmaking the adjustments

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

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

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

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\nstatistical purposes

section 142 (1) dated 11/11/2019.\nPage 13 of 66\nITA No 778/MUM/2022\nNayara Energy Limited\n[ On behalfof VadinarOil Terminal Limited]\nV\nACIT Central Circle -2 (1), Mumbai\nAY 2017-18\nVide its submissions dated 6/12/2019, the assessee\nhas provided details of such expenses claimed in\nthe profit and loss account.\n4.3 Item 40 (a) to the notes deals with

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, DCIT CIRCLE , AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

1)(vii), (viia), and (viii). The assessment was initially completed under Section 143(3). Subsequently, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, alleging an incorrect method of computation for deductions claimed under Section 36

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Union Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Union Bank Bhavan, Tax, Circle- (Ltu)-2, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Vs. 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G Appellant Respondent

reassessment order dated 18/3/2015, wherein he held that standard asset and restructured debt are not part of non-performing assets (NPA) and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the claim of deduction under section