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

price which is one of the two recognized methods of\nvaluation of the closing stock.\n7.5 It cannot be the effect of the RBI guidelines that the total income for the\npurpose of Income Tax has to be computed in accordance with the enjoinment\nof these guidelines. These are only meant as guiding factors to determine the\ncommercial profit

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)(vila) to be reduced from the bad debts of the above-mentioned assessment year ought to be Rs. 1087,57,88,246 as per order giving effect dated September 9, 2020 for AY 2014-15 which could be rectified vide an order under section 154 of the Act and is not a subject matter of review under section

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

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

vi) There should be direct and proximate connection between carrying on\nbusiness and the income earned Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997]\n93 Тахтап 401/227 ITR 557 (SC)\n38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd\n[2016] 67 taxmann.com 158 (SC) has discussed all these principles while\ndeciding whether

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

VI to the Companies Act, 1956 an amount could be first included in the list of\nsundry debtors/loans and then deducted from the list as \"provision for doubtful debts\".\nHowever, these are matters of Presentation of Provisions for doubtful debts even under\nthe Companies Act and have nothing to do with taxability under the Income-tax Act.\nOne more aspect

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

vi) There should be direct and proximate connection between carrying on\nbusiness and the income earned Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997]\n93 Тахтап 401/227 ITR 557 (SC)\n38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd\n[2016] 67 taxmann.com 158 (SC) has discussed all these principles while\ndeciding whether

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

vi) There should be direct and proximate connection between carrying on\nbusiness and the income earned Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997]\n93 Тахтап 401/227 ITR 557 (SC)\n38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd\n[2016] 67 taxmann.com 158 (SC) has discussed all these principles while\ndeciding whether

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

vi) There should be direct and proximate connection between carrying on\nbusiness and the income earned Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997]\n93 Тахтап 401/227 ITR 557 (SC)\n38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd\n[2016] 67 taxmann.com 158 (SC) has discussed all these principles while\ndeciding whether

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

vi) There should be direct and proximate connection between carrying on\nbusiness and the income earned Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997]\n93 Тахтап 401/227 ITR 557 (SC)\n38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd\n[2016] 67 taxmann.com 158 (SC) has discussed all these principles while\ndeciding whether

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

vi) There should be direct and proximate connection between carrying on\nbusiness and the income earned Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997]\n93 Тахтап 401/227 ITR 557 (SC)\n38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd\n[2016] 67 taxmann.com 158 (SC) has discussed all these principles while\ndeciding whether

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

section 36(1)(viii), falling within sub-clause \n(vi) as “any other financial corporation including a public company”. It \nalso submitted that NTPC Ltd., was given loan for development of \ninfrastructure facility in India which falls in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) \nof Explanation below the said provision. \n\n6. 3. It was brought to the knowledge

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

VI to the Companies Act 1956. The\nassessee bank is required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance\nwith Section 52 r.w.s. 29 of the Banking Regulation Act and not as per the\nCompanies Act. Earlier in the case of the assessee it has been settled by the\nHon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that provision of Section 115JB

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

price realised shall be subjected to capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan

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

price realised shall be subjected to capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan

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

VI to the Companies Act 1956. The assessee bank is\nrequired to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with Section 52\nr.w.s.29 of the Banking Regulation Act and not as per the Companies Act.\nEarlier in the case of the assessee it has been settled by the Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court that provision of Section 115JB

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

VI-A) Provided that a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation referred to in this sub-clause shall, at its option, be allowed in any of the two consecutive assessment years commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2003 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2005, deduction

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

VI to the Companies Act, 1956 an amount could be first included in the list of sundry debtors/loans and then deducted from the list as "provision for doubtful debts". However, these are matters of Presentation of Provisions for doubtful debts even under the Companies Act and have nothing to do with taxability under the Income-tax Act. One more aspect