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

Gains of Business & Profession', deductions of large amounts under different sections are being allowed by the Assessing Officers without proper verification, leading to substantial loss of revenue. It is, therefore, necessary that assessments in the cases of banks are completed with due care and after proper verification. In particular, deductions under the provisions referred to ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital expenditure, then the learned ACIT be directed to allow depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act on the same and reduce the total income accordingly. 46. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly submits that, as on now, the issue is covered, against the assessee, by decisions of the coordinate benches, and he does not, therefore, press the issue any further

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue 8 Grounds of Revenue's appeal Issues Ground Number General 1 Deduction under section 36(1)(viia) (connected to ground no.2 in 2 assessee's appeal). Allowing provision for Janata Deposit Collector Gratuity 3 Expenditure incurred towards right issue of shares (connected to 4 ground no.8 in assessee's appeal) State Bank of India

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently\nconfirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly,\nwe hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the\nissue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench\nin assessee's own case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently\nconfirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly,\nwe hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the\nissue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench\nin assessee's own case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

36(1)(viia) and this fact has been consistently\nconfirmed by the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee's case. Accordingly,\nwe hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the\nissue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench\nin assessee's own case

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Capital Gains (LTCG). The assessee in the computation has made a suo-motu disallowance of Rs. 1,16,75,281/- under section 14A of the Act towards administrative expenditure on pro-rata basis of number of employees in the Investment Department vis-à-vis the total number of employees. The AO held that the assessee has not maintained separate

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

Capital Pharma v. ITO (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 34/2013); • DCIT v. Ananda Marakala (ITAT Bang) (ITA No. 1584/2012); • Arcadia Share and Stock Brokers ITA 1871/Mum/2013; • S.S. Networks vs. ITO (ITAT Hyd) (ITA No.478/2013), 8. Addition on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C- Rs. 6,98,56,399 a) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned

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

section 36(1)(viia) r.w.s.36(2)(v).\nSale of Immovable Property acquired through loan to be treated as Business\nIncome / Loss – Ground No.4\n10. During the year under consideration the assessee had sold four immovable\nproperties which were acquired on settlement of loan with the borrower. The\nassessee while filing the return of income has shown the loss from

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

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

section 36(1)(viia) r.w.s.36(2)(v).\n\nSale of Immovable Property acquired through loan to be treated as Business\nIncome / Loss – Ground No.4\n\n10.\nDuring the year under consideration the assessee had sold four immovable\nproperties which were acquired on settlement of loan with the borrower. The\nassessee while filing the return of income has shown the loss

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