ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

36(1)(viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on\n01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the\ndeduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on\nthis issue is deleted

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

36(1)(viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on\n01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the\ndeduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on\nthis issue is deleted

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

section 36(1)(viia) as under: Particulars AY 2011-12 (Rs.) 10% of average advances 316,45,05,004 7.5% of total income 68

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

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

section 36(1)(viia) as under: Particulars AY 2011-12 (Rs.) 10% of average advances 316,45,05,004 7.5% of total income 68

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

viia) of the Act in the preceding previous year of\nRs.159,78,14,026/- and only the balance amount of Rs.19,47,03,938/- was\nclaimed as deduction as bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. In this regard, we\nhave verified the computation of income annexed in page 38 & 39 of the paper\nbook. We have also gone

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

viia) of the Act in the preceding previous year of\nRs.159,78,14,026/- and only the balance amount of Rs.19,47,03,938/- was\nclaimed as deduction as bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. In this regard, we\nhave verified the computation of income annexed in page 38 & 39 of the paper\nbook. We have also gone

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

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

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961.”\n14.\nOn above reasons supplied by the AO to the assessee for reopening of the\nmatter, the submissions of the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) are as under:-\nII. The Appellant was granted deduction of Rs.197 crores u/s. 36(1) (viia). The Appellant\nhas also referred the note

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

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961.\"\n14.\nOn above reasons supplied by the AO to the assessee for reopening of the\nmatter, the submissions of the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) are as under:-\nII. The Appellant was granted deduction of Rs.197 crores u/s. 36(1) (viia). The Appellant\nhas also referred the note

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

section 36(1)(viia) to be reduced ought to be Rs. 1313,68,58,216 as per assessment order

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

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)

viia) and has to be read with Section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while under Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee would be entitled to general deduction upon an account having become bad debt and being written off as irrecoverable

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)

viia) and has to be read with Section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while under Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee would be entitled to general deduction upon an account having become bad debt and being written off as irrecoverable

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

viia) of the Act. 33. Considered the submissions and perused the material on record in the light of the decisions relied upon by the learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee. As it appears, the issue for our consideration is identical to the issue decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in assessee's own case wherein

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

viia) and has to be read with Section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while under Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee would be entitled to general deduction upon an account having become bad debt and being written off as irrecoverable