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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section 115- JB of the Act cannot be applied and consequently, tax on book profit (MAT) are not applicable to such banks. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (cited supra), Ground No.6, raised in assessee’s appeal, is allowed. 42. In view of our finding

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

36(1)(viii) mentioned in paras 1 and 7 and 6 of your show cause notice respectively are subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) 56, Mumbai filed by the Bank and hence do not come within the purview of revision under section 263. We reiterate that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) is neither

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

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 ought

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

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 ought

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

price of\nan article all elements of cost which go into manufacturing or selling it.\nThus understood, it is clear that profits and gains are derived from the\nbusiness of the assessee, namely profits arrived at after deducting\nmanufacturing cost and selling costs reimbursed to the assessee by the\nGovernment concerned.\n19. Similarly, the judgment in Pandian Chemicals

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

36,38,25,151/- On 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act incorporating the above transfer pricing

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

price goes up in\norder to earn profits.........\"\nThe learned Judge then considered the implication of Rule 8D of the Rules in the\ncontext of Section 14-A(2) of the Act and clarified that before applying the theory of\napportionment, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction on Suo Moto\ndisallowance only in those cases where, the apportionment was done

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

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

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 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

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 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

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 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

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 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic \ntransactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). \nXVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions. \nXIX. Increasing the book profit computed u/s.115JB by the amount \ndisallowed as year-end provisions. \nXX. Deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on Employee \nStock Option Scheme ('ESOS'). \nXXI. Deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n21\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 1941(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income hy way of interest\nis obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that\nSection 194A(1) shall not apply if the payment

THE NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

36(1)(viia) is claimed for provision for bad and doubtful debts. 8. Before proceeding further it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of section 263 of the Act, which read as under :- “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call