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

viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on 01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the deduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on this issue is deleted. As a result, Ground

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

36(1)(viia) of\nthe Act on standard assets and this issue is covered by Tribunal's decision in\nassessee's own case for AY 2006-07 in ITA No.3145/Mum/2004 vide order\ndated 06.09.2016. Hence, we allow this issue of assessee's appeal.\n\n9. In view of the decision of the co-ordinate bench as referred above, the issue

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

36(1)(viia) of\nthe Act on standard assets and this issue is covered by Tribunal's decision in\nassessee's own case for AY 2006-07 in ITA No.3145/Mum/2004 vide order\ndated 06.09.2016. Hence, we allow this issue of assessee's appeal.\n9. In view of the decision of the co-ordinate bench as referred above, the issue

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

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under 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

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

viia) of the Act. \nXXII. Deduction of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. \nXXIII. Addition of interest income on income-tax refund. \nXXIV. Dropping penalty proceeding initiated u/s.270A of the Act. \nXXV. Penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) on disallowance on deduction \nu/s.36(1)(viii) \n\n3. \nRelevant grounds for each of the assessment years, both in the \ncase

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

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

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under 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

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

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under 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

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

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under 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

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

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

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

36(1)(viia) has been erroneously allowed by the AO\nwithout verification / examination of the claim and accordingly the order of the AO\nis prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The reasons quoted by the PCIT for the\nclaim by the assessee not being allowable are that the AO has not specifically\nenquired into the allowability of the claim

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

viia) to be reduced from the gross bad debts of Rs.1855,76,37,766 of the aforesaid assessment year. We submit that the change in the opening balance of section 36(1) (vila) may be done vide an order under section 154 of the Act and is not a subject matter of review under section

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

viia) of the Act and it can only claim deduction under 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

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