BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

iii) of the Rules." 8. Thereafter, in the case of PCIT vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

iii) of the Rules.\n8. Thereafter, in the case of PCIT vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance

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

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

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

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

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

36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the\nlender at any given point of time?\"\n8\nITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others\nM/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.\n6.\nThe revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 3677/Mum/2023\nfor AY 2018-19: -\n1.\nWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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

36(1)(iii) as the right to redeem these bonds does not lie with the\nlender at any given point of time?\"\n6\nITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others\nM/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.\n6.\nThe revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 3677/Mum/2023\nfor AY 2018-19: -\n1.\nWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,41,490\nLess: Expenses\nProfit Before Tax\n2,47,36,18,396\n2,53,95,92,893\n(2,36

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