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

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act in respect of alleged unexplained cash deposits made into the bank accounts during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance of INR.24,37,53,214/- by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act in respect of alleged unexplained cash deposits made into the bank accounts during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance of INR.24,37,53,214/- by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act in respect of alleged unexplained cash deposits made into the bank accounts during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance of INR.24,37,53,214/- by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii

ACIT 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

68,231 1,16,54,474 1,16,54,474 12.07 % to 12.55% 11. Neptune Developers & Constructions Neptune Developers & Constructions 13,39,47,506 1,05,75,341 1,05,75,341 20% Pvt. 12. PEL Mgmt Services Pvt. Ltd. PEL Mgmt Services Pvt. Ltd. 20,30,52,068 59,46,742 59,46,742 12.07 % to 12.55% 13. Piramal

ACIT-32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

68,231 1,16,54,474 1,16,54,474 12.07 % to 12.55% 11. Neptune Developers & Constructions Neptune Developers & Constructions 13,39,47,506 1,05,75,341 1,05,75,341 20% Pvt. 12. PEL Mgmt Services Pvt. Ltd. PEL Mgmt Services Pvt. Ltd. 20,30,52,068 59,46,742 59,46,742 12.07 % to 12.55% 13. Piramal

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

iii. Failed to disallow the provision for depreciation on investment amounting to ₹46,19,11,355/-. iv. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of ₹159,22,24,604/- by allowing the claim despite assessee not revising its return of income for new claim which is against the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

68,50,325 for the assessment year 2014- 15 and Rs 8,77,48,747 for the assessment year 2015-16, and reads as follows: “1. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,77,81,219/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.36(1)(iii

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

68,50,325 for the assessment year 2014- 15 and Rs 8,77,48,747 for the assessment year 2015-16, and reads as follows: “1. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,77,81,219/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.36(1)(iii

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

68,50,325 for the assessment year 2014- 15 and Rs 8,77,48,747 for the assessment year 2015-16, and reads as follows: “1. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,77,81,219/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.36(1)(iii

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

iii) of the Rules, i.e. the administrative expenses for the purpose of computing average value of investment. We direct the AO accordingly. The AO will go into the details and will compute the disallowance in view of these observations. This issue is remanded back to the file of the AO. 50. The next issue in this appeal of assessee

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)

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 Expenses

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)

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 Expenses

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)

68. The assessee also relied on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 1977 of 2013. The assessee in this case for the purpose of its books was netting off the depreciation in its securities against appreciation in other securities while for tax purpose, the assessee has been

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)

68. The assessee also relied on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Union Bank of India dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 1977 of 2013. The assessee in this case for the purpose of its books was netting off the depreciation in its securities against appreciation in other securities while for tax purpose, the assessee has been