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

v. Excess grant of deduction under Section 36(1) (vii) of ₹12.23 crores as he failed to disallow the deduction to 10% of rural advances of ₹122.30 crores which were not rural branches ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 vi. Excess deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act of ₹138,52,06,494/- which should

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

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. 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)

v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non- rural advances, is Clarificatory in nature. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC), wherein it was held that one established rule for interpretation of legislation is that

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)

v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non- rural advances, is Clarificatory in nature. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC), wherein it was held that one established rule for interpretation of legislation is that

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non- rural advances, is Clarificatory in nature. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC), wherein it was held that one established rule for interpretation of legislation is that

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

v) of the Act relates to all types of advances i.e. rural and non- 66 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 rural advances, is Clarificatory in nature. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC), wherein

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)

v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into the Act is to disallow the direct and indirect expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 income. The assessee firm

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)

v. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314(SC). 5. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee firm and held that the basic objective of introduction of section 14A into the Act is to disallow the direct and indirect expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 income. The assessee firm

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 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

NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED (ON BEHALF OF MERGED ENTITY VADINAR OIL TERMINAL LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 36 (1) (iii) of the act. The learned CIT A has also held that the assessee has casually claimed that the said funds are used for the business purpose but has not established by the appellant during the assessment proceedings or before the appellate proceedings. He further held that the contention of the assessee that the interest during

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

68,516 to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant claimed that the "Provision for NPA", however, represented "loss" in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under section 37(1) of the Income

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

68,516 to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant claimed that the "Provision for NPA", however, represented "loss" in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under section 37(1) of the 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