BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), 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

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

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

v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2012] 137 ITD 21 (Mum): \"37. On the issue as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer is empowered to determine the arm's length price at \"nil\", we find that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Gemplus India P. Ltd. 2010-TII-55- ITAT-BANGTP, held that the assessee has to establish before

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment. Thus, the adjustments made \nby ld. TPO and added by the ld. Assessing Officer were deleted. \n\n83 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n25. 2. We note that there is no dispute in respect of impugned \ntransactions falling within the definition of SDT under clause (i) of \nsection

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

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

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

price goes up in order to earn profits……….” The learned Judge then considered the implication of Rule 8D of the Rules in the context of Section 14-A(2) of the Act and clarified that before applying the theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction on Suo Moto disallowance only in those cases where, the apportionment was done

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

v) of the Act.\n14. Accordingly, for the purpose of determining taxable income, the provision\nmade of 2.100o is added back and offered to tax, the deduction of ₹.500 is\nclaimed u/s 36(1)(viia) in the tax computation. Therefore, the actual bad debts\nwritten off is charged to the provision account, which the assessee ultimately\nreverses

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

v) of the Act.\n14. Accordingly, for the purpose of determining taxable income, the provision\nmade of 2.100o is added back and offered to tax, the deduction of ₹.500 is\nclaimed u/s 36(1)(viia) in the tax computation. Therefore, the actual bad debts\nwritten off is charged to the provision account, which the assessee ultimately\nreverses