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

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

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

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

ii. Excess of debit allowed of ₹312,69,37,766/- as the learned Assessing Officer failed to correctly compute the allowability of bad debt written off. According to the learned PCIT, the learned Assessing Officer has allowed the bad debt without considering the provisions of Section 36(1) (vii). iii. Failed to disallow the provision for depreciation on investment

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

II, which was followed by the Tribunal in the subsequent assessment years. Moreover, the Hon’ble subsequent assessment years. Moreover, the Hon’ble subsequent assessment years. Moreover, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on appeal by Revenue for assessment Bombay High Court on appeal by Revenue for assessment Bombay High Court on appeal by Revenue for assessment year

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)

ii) is called for, thereby granting relief to the assessee, overlooking the fact that the AO had correctly made the disallowance, as the assessee could not establish the nexus between its own funds and investments made in tax-free income. (b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting

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)

ii) is called for, thereby granting relief to the assessee, overlooking the fact that the AO had correctly made the disallowance, as the assessee could not establish the nexus between its own funds and investments made in tax-free income. (b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting

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

II] Order dated 29.04.2016 for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 [ITA 3823- 24/Mum/2005] [see pages 501 to 528 of the Paper Book - I]” 53. However, we noted that the jurisdictional Bombay High Court vide its Order dated 23.08.2016, upon appeal by the assessee against the Tribunal’s Order for assessment year 1996- 97, has admitted the assessee

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

68, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400034. PAN: AAACP7054Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR) Revenue by : Shri Maurya Pratap (DR) Date of hearing : 15.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act 2 ITA Nos. 7182, 6122/M/2014 & C.O. 23/M/16 M/s. PID Pvt. Ltd. PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. These two appeals

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ii) Interest on Foreign Currency Loans Rs.238,40,57,733/- approved by Central Govt. u/s.10(15)(iv) iii) Interest on long term finance to Rs.134,32,03,850/- infrastructure u/s.10(23G) Total Rs.396,91,54,893/- 5.2. The ld. AO made disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act in the sum of Rs.307,81,30,141/- on proportionate basis

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)

ii) That every assessment year is an independent assessment & therefore the concerned authority has to consider the facts of that year and the case laws relied upon. 3. Without prejudice to the above The appellant submits that Learned Assessing Officer has erred in holding that interest payable to partners on their capital u/s. 40 (b) is an expenditure

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)

ii) That every assessment year is an independent assessment & therefore the concerned authority has to consider the facts of that year and the case laws relied upon. 3. Without prejudice to the above The appellant submits that Learned Assessing Officer has erred in holding that interest payable to partners on their capital u/s. 40 (b) is an expenditure

NAT STEEL EQUIPMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 4011 & 5070/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Room No. 622, Private Limited, G.D. Ambedkar Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, बिधम/ Marg, Naigaum Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Vs. Bombay- 400014. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacn5119J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

Section 28. (ii) Any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered, where such sum would not have been payable to him as profits or dividend if it had not been paid as bonus or commission.” P a g e | 16 ITA Nos. 4011, 5070, 4681,5270/Mum/2013 AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s Nat Steel

NAT STEEL EQUIPMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Private Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J Assessment Years: 2011-12 Dcit-7(1), M/S Nat Steel Equipment Mumbai बनाम/ Private Limited, G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J M/S Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Section 28. (ii) Any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered, where such sum would not have been payable to M/s Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. him as profits or dividend if it had not been paid as bonus or commission.” On a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it emerges that though

DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NAT STEEL EQUIPMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Private Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J Assessment Years: 2011-12 Dcit-7(1), M/S Nat Steel Equipment Mumbai बनाम/ Private Limited, G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J M/S Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Section 28. (ii) Any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered, where such sum would not have been payable to M/s Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. him as profits or dividend if it had not been paid as bonus or commission.” On a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it emerges that though

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

ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V CIT 243 ITR 83 has held that, "The Commissioner noted that the Income-tax Officer passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the Income-tax Officer failed to apply his mind to the case

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