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

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

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

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 in Goetz India Limited [284 ITR 323]. v. Excess grant of deduction under Section 36(1

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

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

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)

iv)(h), 10(23G) by invoking the provisions contained under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. 14. However, on the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) by giving part relief to the assessee restricted the disallowance of Rs.46,35,85,591/- which has been challenged both by the assessee as well

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)

iv)(h), 10(23G) by invoking the provisions contained under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. 14. However, on the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) by giving part relief to the assessee restricted the disallowance of Rs.46,35,85,591/- which has been challenged both by the assessee as well

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

iv) and 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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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 as under:- expenses by ld. AO earning income Interest on foreign 80.81% 192,65,57,054/- currency

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

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

36. So far as the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd. vs. ITO (supra ) is concerned, the ld. AR submitted that that the facts in this case was different from the facts in the case of the Appellant. The Tribunal in paragraph 16 of the order has noted that the assessee therein

BABA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ,DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2970/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Commissioner Of Baba Hotels Pvt. Ltd Income Tax (Appeals) Mumbai बिधम/ Delhi. A-101, Bhaveshwar Arcade, Vs. National Faceless Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar(W), Appeal Centre, New Mumbai 400086 Delhi स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccb9563C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Ms. Anita Thakur अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Minal Kamble Sr.Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 03.10.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Ay 2018-19 In Relation To The Adjustment In The Intimation U/S 143(1).

68,798/- has been made u/s 36(1)(va) in the rectification order u/s 154. The details of payments made have been given at page 6 & 7 of the appellate order. The Ld. CIT (A) after referring to the various decisions cited by the Assessee has decided this issue against the Assessee. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has also dismissed

NEETA TOURS AND TRAVELS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalneeta Tours & Travels, D-1, Hari Bhakti Compound, Retibunder, Opp. Dowellss Co., Ghodbunder Road, Kashimira, Thane-401104. Pan: Aaefn3413G ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Room No.27, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. 162, Midc, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Hiten P. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 30.05.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24) (x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1