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

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

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

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

Section 36(1) (viia) does not differentiate between provision on bad assets and provision\non standard assets and the deduction refers to allowable provisions of anticipated default\non the loans and advances made in respect of total assets including standard assets.\ni. Even in respect of assets that are classified as standard assets, a part of the debts are\ndoubtful

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

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

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The AO by relying on the\ndecision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. DCIT\nand Anr. Which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India concluded that failure on\nthe part of the assesse is not restricted only to the return

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-3(4), 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

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

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 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

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

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) 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

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year ssessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

section 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. Hence required to be disallowed while assessment. 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. Hence required to be disallowed while assessment. 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act. Hence required to be disallowed while assessment. However, it was allowed However, it was allowed in the assessment and has resulted in excess

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

36(1)(viia) and reduce the total income under normal provisions of the Act accordingly. 2.1 Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that if there are funds available both interest free and loans fund then presumption