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

viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the amortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to MMRDA. Both the assessee

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

viii). With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee with regard to the amortization of rent claimed on the leasehold land towards premium paid to MMRDA. Both the assessee

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 (1) (viii

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

reassessment proceedings are bad in law and requires to be quashed. GROUND NO. II - Disallowance of Deduction of Rs.9,55,02.691 u/s. 1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of deduction of Rs.9,55,02,691 u/s. 36(l)(vii) being 20% of profits from providing long term finance for construction / purchase of houses residential purposes on the ground

ICICI BANK LTD. vs. DCIT RANGE 3(1),

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

1)(viii) and the assessee was not obliged to maintain the said reserve. The inclusion of words "and maintain" was not retrospective. We doITA604.11 not find any reason to differ from this view expressed by the Kerala High Court and which was quoted with approval by Delhi High Court in CIT vs. I.F.C.I. (supra).” We find that Hon’ble Bombay

DCIT RG. 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

1)(viii) and the assessee was not obliged to maintain the said reserve. The inclusion of words "and maintain" was not retrospective. We doITA604.11 not find any reason to differ from this view expressed by the Kerala High Court and which was quoted with approval by Delhi High Court in CIT vs. I.F.C.I. (supra).” We find that Hon’ble Bombay

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 CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment opened u/s. 147 is legal and valid. 2(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in reducing Provision for bad and doubtful debts allowable under section 36(1)(viia)(c) from the profits derived from

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA CAPITAL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO TATA CLEANTECH CAPITAL LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

36(1)(viii). 5.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee reiterated its stance on the legality of the reassessment which is on account of change of opinion resulting into review of the assessment by the Ld. Assessing Officer which is not permissible within the provisions of section

EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Export Import Bank Of Acit-3(1), India, Centre One Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Building, Floor 21, World, Road Trade Centre Complex, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaace2769D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Vidisha Kalra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

36(1)(viii) at Rs.54,44,51,395/-. 7.1 At this stage, we may refer to the decision in Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory (supra) relied on by the Ld. DR. In that case the assessee had filed its return of income for the AY 1994-95 showing certain income and the same was accompanied by duly audited accounts

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

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, made the disallowance of cost of entire purchases made from four parties i.e. (1) Disha Enterprises (2) Manav Impex (3) Dhiren Mercantile P Ltd. & (4) Sachi Mercantile P Ltd. The AO not given any finding on the documentary evidence filed by assessee consisting invoices, delivery challan, bank statement

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

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

reassessment proceedings the AO accepted the correctness of the method adopted by the Assessee for calculating deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) of the Act and no addition was made thereon vide assessment order dated 28.12.2017 despite deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act being one of the reasons recorded for issue of notice

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) :

reassessment proceedings would amount to change of opinion. Our attention is drawn to the fact that bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) were allowable only after adjusting the opening credit balance of provision for bad and doubtful debts made u/s 36(1)(viia). The attention has further been drawn to the fact that assessee had computed the figures

SVC CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

reassessment notice was issued after the expiry of 4 years. He submitted that assessee is in appeal before us on claim of deduction under section 36(1)(viii