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)

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

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 u/s

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 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer can he Assessing Officer can only only reassess reassess the the assessment assessment wherever wherever income income escaped escaped assessment, and not the review and not the review the order passed by him order passed by him. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the decision of the the above

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

147 dated 18/03/2015 of the Assessing Officer ) and secondly, ITAT order in ITA No. 1827/Mum/2017 dated 3/10/2018. 4. The ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in relation to claim for provision for bad and doubtful debt in the books of accounts of the assessee. The assessee in its return

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

147 dated 18/03/2015 of the Assessing Officer ) and secondly, ITAT order in ITA No. 1827/Mum/2017 dated 3/10/2018. 4. The ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act in relation to claim for provision for bad and doubtful debt in the books of accounts of the assessee. The assessee in its return

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

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

u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. However, this was not done , leading to excess allowance of deduction by Rs. 14,58,62,181/-. A.O. has failed to examine these facts. Failure of the assessing officer to examine the same has rendered the assessment order dated 31.12.2018 as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests

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

In the result, both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

section 154(7). 1.2 Without prejudice to above contention CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the issue of restriction of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) is a highly legal and debatable issue and cannot be a matter of rectification u/s 154. 2 Union Bank of India On Merits 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that eligible amount

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

section 147 of the Act. 29. In view of the above discussion, we hold that reopening of assessment. u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is quashed. Since, we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 the Revenue’s appeal

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

section 147 of the Act. 29. In view of the above discussion, we hold that reopening of assessment. u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is quashed. Since, we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 the Revenue’s appeal

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

section 147 of the Act. 29. In view of the above discussion, we hold that reopening of assessment. u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is quashed. Since, we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 the Revenue’s appeal

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

section 147 of the Act. 29. In view of the above discussion, we hold that reopening of assessment. u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is quashed. Since, we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 the Revenue’s appeal

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

section 147 of the Act. 29. In view of the above discussion, we hold that reopening of assessment. u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is quashed. Since, we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 the Revenue’s appeal

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

section 147 of the Act. 29. In view of the above discussion, we hold that reopening of assessment. u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is quashed. Since, we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 the Revenue’s appeal

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

section 147 of the Act. 29. In view of the above discussion, we hold that reopening of assessment. u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is quashed. Since, we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 the Revenue’s appeal

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) :

147 dated 25/02/2009 wherein it has been stated that the figures of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) for Rs.1649.92 Crores has been arrived at after reducing the credit balance in provision for bad and doubtful debts amounting to Rs.31.05 Crores. The provision u/s 36(1)(viia) for this year has been computed to be Rs.129.12 Crores which

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