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 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)

vii) has not been deducted from the total income before computing the deductions u/s. 36(1) (viia). 7. In response to that the assessee vide its reply filed on 07.03.2022 submitted as under: “As per the letter dated 16.07.2021, wherein you have intimated the reasons recorded it is seen that in the assessment order passed on 28.12.2018 the deduction u/s

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

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

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

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

vii) restricts the deduction of the same\n7.\nWhether on the fact and the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble ITAT\nwas correct in allowing provision on standard assets of Rs. 41.36 crs. When in fact\nstandard assets are neither bad nor doubtful as required by section 36(1) (viia) of the Act\n8.\nOn the facts

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

vii) restricts the deduction of the same\n7.\nWhether on the fact and the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble ITAT\nwas correct in allowing provision on standard assets of Rs. 41.36 crs. When in fact\nstandard assets are neither bad nor doubtful as required by section 36(1) (viia) of the Act\n8.\nOn the facts

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

vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36(1)(viia

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

vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36(1)(viia

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

vii) of the Act does not exceed the credit balance under section 36(1)(viia) allowed in the preceding assessment year 2010-11, the same is not allowable and is required to be added to the total income. 2.2 The Pr. CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the issue

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) :

36(1)(vii), exemption under section 10(23G), deduction under section 35DDA had been considered in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated December 29, 2006 and section 147 of the Act does not postulate ICICI Bank Limited Assessment Year-2004-05 conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change

WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

vii) The time limit for initiating the proceedings u/s 201(1) cannot be the same as that for the passing of order under this subsection. Time for initiation is always prior to the time for completing the proceedings. (viii) The reasonable time for initiating and completing the proceedings u/s 201(1) has to be at par with the time limit

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

HATHWAY C-NET P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TAX RECOVERY (TDS) 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

vii) The time limit for initiating the proceedings u/s 201(1) cannot be the same as that for the passing of order under this subsection. Time for initiation is always prior to the time for completing the proceedings. (viii) The reasonable time for initiating and completing the proceedings u/s 201(1) has to be at par with the time limit

HATHWAY CABLE & DATACOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

vii) The time limit for initiating the proceedings u/s 201(1) cannot be the same as that for the passing of order under this subsection. Time for initiation is always prior to the time for completing the proceedings. (viii) The reasonable time for initiating and completing the proceedings u/s 201(1) has to be at par with the time limit

ACIT - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. (NO MERGED WITH HDFC BANK LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

u/s 36(1)(vii) instead of the net amount of Rs. 363 Lahs after deduction provision made of Rs.1434 lakhs during the year. The amount written back from the provision account will definitely include provision for which deduction was allowed u/s.36(1)(viia) in earlier years for rural as well as urban advances. That part of Provision written back

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TMF HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

u/s 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(visa). ii) The Assessee had entered into the contract with the TML where it was almost certain to incur losses and that is why the TML was to provide for the Gap Funding for such losses. iii) Now the assessee submitted that it could not recover the loan and interest on such loans

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

vii) of the Act relating to allowance of bad debts and the deductions have to be allowed independently. 19. Coming to restricting the allowance for deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act being the provision made for doubtful debts the Tribunal held that provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act are very clear and provides that

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

vii) of the Act relating to allowance of bad debts and the deductions have to be allowed independently. 19. Coming to restricting the allowance for deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act being the provision made for doubtful debts the Tribunal held that provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act are very clear and provides that

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

vii) of the Act relating to allowance of bad debts and the deductions have to be allowed independently. 19. Coming to restricting the allowance for deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act being the provision made for doubtful debts the Tribunal held that provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act are very clear and provides that