M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act, no part of interest expendi-\nture has been allocated to income from capital gains/dividend. The Id AR fur-\nther submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Reliance\nUtilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) (refer pages 68

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

viii. Excess allowances of deduction of ₹250,03,69,520/- under Section 36 (1) (vii) of the Act, where the assessee is eligible for deduction to the extent of only ₹542,07,79,550/- but in the assessment order same was allowed to the extent of ₹792,11,49,070/-. 06. This show cause notice was replied

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

36(1)(viii) or only that part of income which\nis earned from lending long term finance are eligible for deduction under section\n36(1)(viii). The language of the legislature while quantifying the amount of\ndeduction is \"**** of the profits derived from such business of providing long-\nterm finance\" and whether this would mean the entire profits

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

viii) amounts to ₹ 3,797,060,858/–. Thereafter applying the ratio of special reserve transfer and amount equal to twice of the paid-up share capital and general reserve, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 36 (1) (vii ) of the act amounting to ₹ 3,797,060,858. 024. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to justify

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

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

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency

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

viii)\n(ix)\nDisallowance of ease of expenses\nDisallowance of interest under section 43B r.w.r 6EA\nDisallowance of interest accrued but not due\nDisallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D\nDisallowance under section 35D\nDisallowance of bad-debts pertaining to Credit Card\nDisallowance of interest on perpetual bonds\nDisallowance of amortization of premium on HTM\nInvestments\nDisallowance