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

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove." 7. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala

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 have been

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

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

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT (OSD)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2014-15

v) of the Act requires bad debts written off to be debited to this account. The proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act states that opening credit balance in this account as on 1st day of previous year should be reduced from the amount of bad debts written off during the previous year and excess of bad debts

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

price whichever is lower, and it is now generally accepted as an established rule of commercial practice and accountancy. As profits for income-tax purposes are to be computed in conformity with the ordinary principles of commercial accounting, unless of course, such principles have been superseded or modified by legislative enactments unrealised profits in the shape of appreciated value

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)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, if this expenditure is incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act, the same shall only be allowed as deduction only against the exempt income u/s 14A of the Act or in other words , such interest

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)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. Thus, if this expenditure is incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under this Act as envisaged u/s 14A of the Act, the same shall only be allowed as deduction only against the exempt income u/s 14A of the Act or in other words , such interest

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal of the AO is dismissed. 0104. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009–10, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. For A.Y. 2010–11 0105. ITA Nos. 3811 & 5227/Mum/2016 0106. Assessee has preferred ITA number 3811/M/2016 for assessment year 2000 – 11 against