DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 36(1)(viia) as under: Particulars AY 2011-12 (Rs.) 10% of average advances 316,45,05,004 7.5% of total income 68

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 36(1)(viia) as under: Particulars AY 2011-12 (Rs.) 10% of average advances 316,45,05,004 7.5% of total income 68

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

section 36(1)(viia) to be reduced ought to be Rs. 1313,68,58,216 as per assessment order

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 27. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to the issue, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.2709,78,23,972, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. In the notes to the computation of income filed along with the return

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 27. The brief facts of the case, pertaining to the issue, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.2709,78,23,972, under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. In the notes to the computation of income filed along with the return

M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 The State Bank Of India Asst. Cit Circle-Patiala, (Successor To State Bank Of Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Patiala), Patiala-147001 Dgm & Cfo, Sbi, Local Head Office – Chandigarh, 2Nd Floor, Sector 17A, Chandigarh- 160017. Pan No. Aaccs 0143 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved & Mr. Ninadpatade, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 09/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023

36(1)(viia) of the Act. This ground of appeal deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. This grou deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. This grou is, therefore, dismissed. is, therefore, dismissed.” 12. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act being the amount of bad debts written off (other than in respect of rural advances). This issue of assessee appeal is allowed. 60. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing deduction claimed by assessee

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts (other than in respect of rural advances). So grounds No.5.1 & 5.2 are decided in favour of the assessee. Ground No.6 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 26. The AO made an addition of Rs.17,40,43,00,607/- by reducing depreciation/taxing appreciation in the value of securities held

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(vii) of the Act on account of bad debts (other than in respect of rural advances). So grounds No.5.1 & 5.2 are decided in favour of the assessee. Ground No.6 of ITA No.3685/M/2013 (Assessee’s appeal) 26. The AO made an addition of Rs.17,40,43,00,607/- by reducing depreciation/taxing appreciation in the value of securities held

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

36(l)(vii) of the Act as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd, v/s CIT, [2010] 323 ITR 166 (SC). 40. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the-material on record in the light of the decisions of the Tribunal rendered in assessee's own case as well as the decision

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

1,38,68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

1,38,68,778 Average value of Investment related to Tax free income Opening Investment 5,22,02,950.00 Closing Investment 4,74,88,371.17 4,98,45,660 Average Total Assets in Balance Sheet Opening Total Assets 50,37,32,643 Closing Total Assets 58,77,80,214 54,57,56,428 Interest Expenses 12,66,679 C Deemed

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

68,000 ought to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act read with section

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3691/Mum/2023

68,000 ought to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act read with section

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

36 (1) (vii ) of the act amounting to ₹ 3,797,060,858. 024. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to justify the claim of deduction Under that Section. After that learned assessing officer allowed the claim of ₹ 3,778,145,600/–. ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 025. The learned principal Commissioner of income

DUCK CREEK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

68,05,543 without even any mentioning the clause of section 143(1) wherein the disallowance is alleged to fall while the Appellant contends that the disallowance is outside the scope of that section. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in giving overriding effect to the procedural provision of section 143(1) disregarding the substantive

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à- vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial valuation

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à- vis pension or any other retirement benefits. Thus, the aforesaid provision for pension made on the basis of an actuarial valuation