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

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

section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under\nsection 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad\ndebts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT(A) is\nalso not correct, the revenue has to appreciate the actual claim of deductions

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

vii) of the Act and in\nalternative claimed it as a loss incurred in the ordinary course of business\nu/s 37(1)/ u/s 28 of the Act.\nPer contra the ld. D/R strongly supported the findings of the ld.\nCIT(A) and read the operative part.\n17. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the\nauthorities below

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

vii) of the Act and in alternative claimed it as a loss incurred in the ordinary course of business u/s 37(1) / u/s 28 of the Act. Per contra the ld. D/R strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and read the operative part. 17. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below

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

vii) of Rs.250,03,69,520 9.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. CIT ought to have appreciated that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) being a deduction linked to the total income computed is subject to revision each time the total income changes. In the present case, the balance 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

price. The Mumbai Tribunal held that excess of appreciation over the cost price would not be considered for valuing the closing stock. In the present case, we are not concerned with a scenario where in the State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 later year the depreciation provided in earlier years is reduced. Further, the decision

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

price. The Mumbai Tribunal held that excess of appreciation over the cost price would not be considered for valuing the closing stock. In the present case, we are not concerned with a scenario where in the State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 later year the depreciation provided in earlier years is reduced. Further, the decision

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

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

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

vii) in earlier years is not taxable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to\ndelete the addition made in this regard.\nApplicability of provisions of section 115JB\n13.\nWe notice that the issue of applicability of provisions of section 115JB has\nbeen considered by the Special Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 (ITA\nNo. 424/Mum/2020 dated

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

vii) in earlier years is not taxable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to\ndelete the addition made in this regard.\nApplicability of provisions of section 115JB\n13. We notice that the issue of applicability of provisions of section 115JB has\nbeen considered by the Special Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 (ITA\nNo. 424/Mum/2020 dated

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

vii) in earlier years is not taxable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to\ndelete the addition made in this regard.\nApplicability of provisions of section 115JB\n13.\nWe notice that the issue of applicability of provisions of section 115JB has\nbeen considered by the Special Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 (ITA\nNo. 424/Mum/2020 dated

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

vii) in earlier years is not taxable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to\ndelete the addition made in this regard.\nApplicability of provisions of section 115JB\n13. We notice that the issue of applicability of provisions of section 115JB has\nbeen considered by the Special Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 (ITA\nNo. 424/Mum/2020 dated

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

36(1)(vii) w.e.f. April 1, 1989 if the debt has been written as\nirrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, it will suffice for claiming it\nas bad debt in the year of write off.\n5. Re: Disallowance of Business Loss and other expenses-290,47,92,249\n[Para 8, Pages