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

ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts

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

ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii) Disallowance under section 14A - Rs. 5,50,86,192/- (iv) Restricting the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) to Rs. 71,75,94,432/- 4. Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee with respect to disallowance made towards bad-debts

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

ii) only w.r.t. those investments which have yielded exempt income\nduring the year and exclude those investments which have not yielded exempt income\nduring the year.\nGROUND NO. 2 Short Deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) of Rs. 112.65 crores in respect\nof Provision for Standard Asset.\n1.\nThe CIT (A) erred in not considering provision on Standard Asset amounting

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) (viia).\n7.\nThe Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the disallowance of\nadministrative expenses of Rs. 26, 61, 70,026/- u/s. 14A r.w.rule 6D(2)(ii).\n8.\nWithout prejudice to the above, the Appellant prays that the AO be directed to\nexclude strategic Investments made in subsidiary companies /JV/Unlisted companies etc.\nfor working out disallowance

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)

ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. 10. The claim for deduction for the „Provision

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

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

II. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234C OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble JCIT(A) erred in confirming the additional levy of interest u/s 234C of the Act amounting Rs. 17,37,64,891/- as consequential in nature. 3 ITA 1093/Mum/2025 ITA 992/Mum/2025 Yes Bank

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

II. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234C OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble JCIT(A) erred in confirming the additional levy of interest u/s 234C of the Act amounting Rs. 17,37,64,891/- as consequential in nature. 3 ITA 1093/Mum/2025 ITA 992/Mum/2025 Yes Bank

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

36(1)(viii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,21,33,189 which lead to the\nescapablement income of the Assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 and that the said\nescapablement of income occurred because the Assessee failed to fully and truly\ndisclose material facts necessary for assessment, the AO thus, made an addition

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

PRAFUL ARJUN RANE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

ii) the first proviso to Section 149 ensures that re-assessment for previous assessment years cannot be undertaken beyond six years, and (iii) the monetary threshold of Rupees fifty lakhs will apply to the re- assessment for previous assessment years, c. The relaxations provided under Section 3(1) of TOLA apply "notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act." Section

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

ii) The time limit of four years is now reduced to three years for all situations. The Revenue can issue notices under Section 148 of the new regime only if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (iii) the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime stipulates that the Revenue

H.K. ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment pending on the date of initiating of search shall abate and merge into the assessment proceedings initiation u/s 153A of the Act, and in respect of non-abated assessment year, the assessment can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search. Admittedly in the present case no incriminating material was found during