TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1)(1), Mumbai. Consolidated details of these appeals and cross objection are tabulated below: Sr. No. ITA No. Order of CIT(A) Assessment order Assessment year Appeal by No. Date Passed by Date Passed u/s. 1. 5712/M/20 25 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 024- 25/1074289792(1) 10.03.2025 DCIT, 2(1)(1), Mumbai CC 31.03.2021 143(3) r.w.s. 250 2009-10 Revenue 2. 5522/M/20 25 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 024- 25/1074281803(1) 10.03.2025 DCIT, 2(1)(1), Mumbai CC 30.12.2019 143(3) r.w.s. 254 2011-12 Revenue 5523/M/20 25 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 024- 25/1074282992(1) 10.03.2025 DCIT, 2(1)(1), Mumbai CC 30.12.2019 143(3) r.w.s. 254 2012-13 Revenue 3. 4398/M/20 25 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 024- 25/1072330598(1) 20.01.2025 ACIT, 2(1)(1), Mumbai CC 30.03.2022 143(3) r.w.s. 147 2017-18 Revenue 4. C. O.237/M/202 5 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 024- 25/1072330598(1) 20.01.2025 ACIT, 2(1)(1), Mumbai CC 30.03.2022 143(3) r.w.s. 147 2017-18 Assessee 5. 4369/M/20 25 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 024- 25/1071678952(1) 30.12.2024 ACIT, 2(1)(1), Mumbai CC 19.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal by Rev Rev Rev Assessee Rev Rev Rev Assessee Rev Rev Rev Rev Assessment year 2009-10 2011-12 2012-13 2017-18 2017-18 2017-18 2017-18 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2019-20 2020-21 Sr. No. ITA Nos. 5712 5522 5523 1240 4368 4369 4398 CO 237 5275 5276 # 5524 5564 Issues 1 Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) 1 to 3 1 to 2. 6 1, 3 to 5 -- -- 1 to 3 -- -- 1 to 3 1 to 3 1 to 3 1 to 3 2 Bad debts written off -- -- -- -- -- 4 -- -- 4 -- 4 4 3 Taxability of interest accrued but not due -- -- -- -- -- 5 to 6 -- -- 5 to 6 -- 5 to 6 5 to 6 4 Disallowance of Interest paid on perpetual bonds -- -- -- -- -- 7 to 10 -- -- 8 to 11 4 to 7 7 to 10 7 to 10 5 Disallowance of amortisation of premium on HTM securities -- -- -- -- -- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, we recapitulate certain basic and relevant facts in this regard. 3.1. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2017, reporting total income at Rs. 5272,63,72,980/- under the normal provisions of the Act. The same was revised with total income at Rs. 4535,87,04,470/-. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) which was subsequently subjected to revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 wherein ld. PCIT held that the said assessment was completed without making addition in respect of opening balance of FCTR of Rs. 2238,55,01,000/- so as to be in compliance with CBDT circular No. 10/2017, dated 23.03.2017, making the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Against the said revisionary order passed u/s. 263, matter went before the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 1687/Mum/2020, order dated 08.03.2022. The Coordinate Bench directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh on merits and vacated the finding of the ld. PCIT. In this regard, we perused the said order and took note of the observations made in para-7 whereby the Coordinate Bench notes that issue with respect to taxability of FCTR has not been examined or even claimed to be examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts accounting methodology adopted giving rise to the same. According to the assessee, it as a bank follows an accounting policy for investment in its foreign branches where its assets and liabilities are translated at the closing spot rates notified by FEDAI at the end of each quarter for translation in respect of non-integral operations. The income and expense are translated at quarterly average rate notified by FEDAI at the end of each quarter. Resulting exchange differences are not recognized as income or expense for the period but accumulated in a separate account viz, Foreign Currency Translation Reserve' ('FCTR') till the disposal of the net investment. Assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 138.76 crores for AY 2017-18, being loss in FCTR on account of monetary items. 4.1. Union of India notified ICDS on 31.03.2015 whose applicability was subsequently postponed to Assessment Year 2017-18. Relevant ICDS for the issue in hand before us is ICDS-VI relating to the effects of changes in foreign exchange rates. On perusal of this standard, its preamble mentions that in case of conflict between the provisions of the Act and this ICDS, the provisions of Act shall prevail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions of the assessee are that it valued its monetary items relating to non-integral operations at the exchange rate on the date of transaction and the balance in the FCTR account being notional would only be a proforma entry. According to it, the foreign currency monetary assets constitute stock in trade of banking business and therefore, mere re-valuation of closing stock without considering opening stock cannot give rise to taxable income even under ICDS-VI. In this connection, reference is made to paragraph 9(3) of ICDS-VI based on which it is submitted that the transitional provision cannot be construed to bring to charge to tax, unearned gain of prior years. Transitional provision provides that for charging any income in the current year relating to outstanding foreign exchange, income already charged to tax in earlier years would be reduced in order to avoid double taxation. Such a transitional provision cannot be construed to bring to charge to tax, notional income pertaining to opening balance of FCTR relating in fact to the earlier years. 4.5. Assessee valued the opening and closing monetary items relating to non-integral operations at year end exchange rates and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the previous year of every person. IF any income has escaped assessment in an earlier previous year, then the ITO may reopen the assessment for the purpose of bringing into tax the income that has escaped assessment. The escapement may be due to undervaluation of stock in the earlier year. But because the income of the earlier year has escaped assessment is not a ground for assessing the current year's profit at a distorted figure. The general rule of accountancy is that the value of the closing stock of a year becomes the value of the opening stock of the next year. But in a case like this where the ITO has made an allegation of undervaluation and has valued the closing stock at the market rate rejecting the assessee's valuation, then to arrive at the correct figure of profit, the ITO must also value the opening stock in a similar fashion. If the assessee's method of valuation of the opening stock is accepted and at the same time that method is rejected for valuation of the closing stock, then a highly emerge. This will be beyond the scope of the charging section. This position was explained at length by Marten, CJ in the case of Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charging section to bring to tax any income under the Act, we refer to section 4 which reads as under: "4(1) Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with, and subject to the provisions (including provisions for the levy of additional income-tax) of, this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly. (2) In respect of income chargeable under sub-Section (1), income-tax shall be deducted at the source or paid in advance, where it is so deductible or payable under any provision of this Act." 6.1. From the perusal of the above section, it is clear that income-tax shall be charged for that year in respect to total income of the previous year of every person. In this regard, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Motor Industries Company Ltd. (supra) observed on a similar issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egard, it is important to note about the binding nature of CBDT circular on the Income-tax authorities for which gainful guidance is taken from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC) wherein it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee. 7.1. In the case of UCO Bank [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the legal status of such circulars, observed as under: "Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board thus has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forgo the advantage when required to wie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....October, 2004 and the case was selected for scrutiny on 6th July, 2005. It may be pointed out that Mrs. Gutgutia was, in fact, reiterating the views taken by the learned Tribunal which we also quoted above. By any process of reasoning, it was not open for the learned Tribunal to come to a finding that the department acted within the four corners of Circulars No.9 and 10 issued by CBDT. The circulars were evidently violated. The circulars are binding upon the department under section 119 of the I.T. Act. 8. Mrs. Gutgutia, learned Advocate submitted that the circulars are not meant for the purpose of permitting the unscrupulous assessee's from evading tax. Even assuming, that to be so, it cannot be said that the department, which is State, can be permitted to selectively apply the standards set by themselves for their own conduct. If this type of deviation is permitted, the consequences will be that floodgate of corruption will be opened which it is not desirable to encourage. When the department has set down a standard for itself, the department is bound by that standard and cannot act with discrimination. In case, it does that, the act of the department is bound to be stru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act which shall prevail over the ICDS provisions in the case of a conflict between the two. We have deliberated on the conflict between the provisions of section 4 and 5 with that of ICDS-VI read with CBDT Circular to bring to tax the opening balance of FCTR in the current year. When the provisions of section 43AA are read with provisions to section 4 and 5, it is abundantly clear that income-tax shall be charged for the year in respect of the total income of the previous year. In the present case, the FCTR opening balance relates to the preceding year and bringing it to tax in the year under consideration is violative of the charging section under the Act, i.e., section 4 and 5. We also take note of the fact that assessee has complied with the provisions of ICDS by valuing the opening and closing monetary items relating to non-integral operations at the year-end exchange rates and claiming the difference as a deduction. The approach adopted by ld. Assessing Officer and as confirmed by ld. CIT(A) does not bring parity into the treatment given for the opening balance and the closing balance of FCTR in the year under consideration as both relates to monetary items which are n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment year 2015-16. Vide its order dated 06.09.2024, the Special Bench of the Tribunal deciding the issue in favour of the assessee banks, including the assessee in appeal before us, held that clause (b) to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.2013, i.e., from the assessment year 2013-14 onwards, are not applicable to the banks constituted as corresponding new banks in terms of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, provisions of section 115JB of the Act cannot be applied and consequently, 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.4 raised in assessee's appeal is allowed." 11. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 13. Now we take up ITA No.5712/Mum/2025. The sole issue involved in the appeal filed by the Revenue is in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) for which relief has been granted by the ld. CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he subject matter of adjudication by this Tribunal in the case of Central Bank of India vs. DCIT in ITA No.3739/Mum/2018 & 3763/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2012-13 dated 29/01/2020, which is authored by the undersigned, wherein it was held that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., reported in 402 ITR 640 had categorically upheld the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala reported in 78 Taxmann.com 3 (P & H) with regard to non- applicability of provisions of Section 14A of the Act in respect of investments held as stock in trade in respect of banks. It was also held by this Tribunal that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in above mentioned case had further placed reliance on the CBDT Circular No.18 /2015 dated 02/11/2015. Hence, by respectfully following the said decision, we hold that there was absolutely no error in the action of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that provisions of Section 14A of the Act could not be made applicable in respect of investments in shares held as 'stock in trade' in the case of assessee bank. Accordingly, the ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed." 13.1. Before us, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- (2571155031- 1487812496) becomes due to the assessee by the revenue. Hence this sum of Rs 108.33 crores automatically partakes the character of principal/tax portion of amounts payable by the revenue to the assessee on which interest is eligible. There is no need to segregate the refunds granted into tax portion and interest portion and subsequently reduce the tax portion of the refund alone from the refund originally determined for calculation of interest u/s 244A of the Act for the period subsequent to 4.7.1997. This action of the ld AO, in our considered opinion, is against the spirit of the provisions of the scheme of taxation. The provisions of section 140A of the Act specifically provides that any part payment of taxes paid by the assessee would first be appropriated towards the interest portion thereon and thereafter remaining would get adjusted towards the tax portion, meaning thereby, the exchequer should never be deprived of its legitimate dues payable by the assessee in time. The same analogy would equally apply when the refund is to be granted to the assessee with interest u/s 244A of the Act. In the instant case, the entire confusion had arose due to the fact that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & L a/c and offered to tax. As per the movement of technical/ prudential written off accounts given in the annual report, it was noticed that sum of Rs. 459.63 crore was shown as recoveries from previously technically/prudentially written off accounts whereas only a sum of Rs. 326.83 was credited to Profit and Loss account and offered to tax. Accordingly, ld. Assessing Officer sought to tax the differential amount of Rs. 132.80 crore. Assessee explained that the said amount is on account of other deductions like exchange difference arising in case of write off done by foreign branches, upgradation/shifting of account from recovery toward interest (booked under interest income of bank) etc. The submissions made was not accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer and the assessment reopened and reassessment order u/s 147 passed against which the present appeal is filed. 18.2. Contention of the assessee is that there is no new tangible material in respect of the issue considered while recording reasons to believe and reopening is based only on details already on record. Addition made towards recovery in respect of bad debts written off is based on accounts already available in the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the assessment records......". Furthermore, to form a considered view about the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment, he again mentions in para- 5 about the material available on record on the basis on which he arrives at a belief that income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs. 238.19 crores has escaped assessment. 20. In the conspectus of the above reasons to believe recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer and the findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A), we find that the approach of the ld. Assessing Officer tantamount to reviewing his own order originally passed u/s. 143(3) by resorting to the impugned reopening without bringing any new tangible material. It is a settled positon that reopening on the material and information which is already available on record while passing of original assessment order amounts to change of opinion and is not permitted under the law. Reliance placed on the above stated judicial precedents gives force to the findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A). Before us, nothing cogent is brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the factual position as contained in the reasons to believe recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Assessment Year will automatically become the opening credit balance in the provision account for the next year. The bad debts written off in the next year has to be then reduced from the said opening credit balance for the preceding assessment year. 24.3. Against this, contention of the assessee is that there cannot be a notional debit to the provision account of part of bad debts written off alone. Section 36(2)(v) stipulates that the entire bad debt or part thereof which is written off has to be debited to the provision for bad and doubtful account u/s. 36(1)(viia). Requirement of the Act in this regard u/s. 36(1)(viia) is that any bad debt or part of a debt which is written off as irrecoverable has to be debited to the provision account. Assessee recomputed the provision account based on the submissions so made and claimed for a deduction of Rs. 2559.36 crores to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(vii). The computation so furnished is reproduced as under: Computation of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) A Opening Balance as on 01.04.2016 (-)720,48,41,247/- B Provision claimed during the year FY 2013-14 1933,64,53,589/- FY 2014-15 24....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount. Thus, the amount exceeding the provision under section 36(1)(viia) is claimed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. As the provision account maintained under section 36(1)(viia) did not have any credit balance as on 01/04/2015, no amount was reduced from the aggregate bad debts amounting to Rs. 2356.44 crore claimed during the year under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. On the other hand, the AO objected to the methodology of preparing the bad debt provision account and the amounts claimed under section 36(1)(viia) and section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. As per the AO, the methodology of the assessee leads to double deduction of bad debts. Accordingly, the AO recomputed the provision account and recalculated the bad debts allowable to the assessee under section 36(1)(vii) out of the provision credit balance under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 32. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note the provisions of the Act, which are relevant for the decision on this issue. Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act provides as under: - "(vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of the first proviso shall have effect as if for the words "five per cent", the words "ten per cent" had been substituted : Provided also that a scheduled bank or a non-scheduled bank referred to in this sub-clause shall, at its option, be allowed a further deduction in excess of the limits specified in the foregoing provisions, for an amount not exceeding the income derived from redemption of securities in accordance with a scheme framed by the Central Government: Provided also that no deduction shall be allowed under the third proviso unless such income has been disclosed in the return of income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession." Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-clause, "relevant assessment years" means the five consecutive assessment years commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2000 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2005;" 35. Thus, as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, the provision for bad and doubtful debts account shall include an amount not exceeding 7.5% of the total income and an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches of such b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on on account of bad debts which are written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee is admissible. However, this should be allowed only if the assessee had debited the amount of such debts to the provision for bad and doubtful debt account under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, as required by section 36(2)(v) of the Act. (ii) While considering the claim for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii), the Assessing Officer should allow only such amount of bad debts written off as exceeds the credit balance available in the provision for bad and doubtful debt account created under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The credit balance for this purpose will be the opening credit balance i.e., the balance brought forward as on 1st April of the relevant accounting year. .................................." 37. Having perused the provisions of sections 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia) and 36(2)(v) of the Act in the light of Instruction No.17 of 2008 issued by the CBDT, we do not find any infirmity in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, prepared by the assessee in the following manner: - AY Opening Balance Claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question of double benefit is concerned, the Legislature in its wisdom introduced Section 36(2)(v) by the Finance Act, 1985 with effect from 01.04.1985. Section 36(2)(v) concerns itself as a check for claim of any double deduction and has to be read in conjunction with Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. It requires the assessee to debit the amount of such debt or part thereof in the previous year to the provision made for that purpose." 39. Since the provision for bad and doubtful debt account maintained under section 36(1)(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 No.5, raised in assessee's appeal, is allowed." 24.5. In another decision, by the Coordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India in ITA No. 7143/Mum/2008, dated 15.02.2012, it was held that whole of the bad debts written off would be deductible u/s. 36(1)(vii) when there was no credit balance in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifies as Tier-1 capital of bank. According to the assessee, IPDI issued by the banks are in the nature of borrowing only. They are reckoned as Tier-1 capital only for the limited purpose of ascertaining the capital adequacy norms as per RBI guidelines. Though they are stated to be perpetual, banks still have an option of issuing a call option after a period of 10 years. Banks pay interest on these bonds are prefixed rates which may either be fixed or floating. These outstanding IPDI is reported in the balance sheet under the head "Borrowings". Interest paid on these bonds is subjected to TDS provisions for which a recipient gets credit. An important fact is worth noting in this regard that out of Rs. 4911.70 crores of bonds outstanding as on 31.03.2017, a sum of Rs. 2911.70 crores had been repaid which demonstrates that these IPDI are periodically repaid, hence not in the nature of capital as construed by the ld. Assessing Officer. 26.1. In the backdrop of above stated factual matrix, the issue before us is no longer res integra as already covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2016-17 in ITA No. 2777/2019, da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xchange of coins and small denomination notes and mutilated notes. By following the ratio laid in the decision of ANZ Grindlays Bank vs. DCIT [2004] 88 ITD 53 (Del) by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi, the disallowance was deleted. 28.1. In the given set of facts before us, where the amount paid by the assessee is towards non-compliance of RBI guidelines for maintaining KYC of clients, the said claim is towards the business of banking in which assessee is engaged in. It is for the purpose of its business and not in the nature of an offence or prohibited under any law. The issue is covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of IDBI Bank Ltd. as stated above. Disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer on this account is deleted. Ground no. 14 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 29. Coming to ground nos. 15 and 16 on the applicability of section 115JB, the same has already been adjudicated upon by us while dealing with appeal in ITA No. 4369/Mum/2025 filed by the Department. These grounds are squarely covered by our observations and findings in the said appeal and applies mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, ground nos. 15 and 16 raised by the Revenue are dismissed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng it as contingent liability, not spent during the year under consideration. According to the assessee, sum of Rs. 100 crores towards amount of wage arears was arrived at based on the indicative increase in the wages payable by the bank which pertained to the period from November 2017 to March 2018. According to the assessee, the said liability was quantified during the year under consideration based on ongoing negotiations between the Indian Bank Association and Employees Union and the indicative percentage of wage increase, which was available at that point of time. Assessee follows accrual basis of accounting and hence, claimed the said deduction which is made on the basis of a reasonable estimate. This issue has come up before the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 4619, 4872/Mum/2012, dated 04.11.2015 allowing the claim so made. 32.1. In the present case before us, there being no material change in the factual matrix, except for the quantum of deduction claimed, ld. CIT(A) by following the judicial precedent, deleted the disallowance to which we do not find any reason to interfere with. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s relied on Case Ref Number Ref No. in case law AO Order CIT(A) Order Para Page 1-3 Disallowance u/s. 14 Para - 5 Page - 3 to 12 i) Para - 5 Page 3 to 11 ii) Para 1 Page 30 iii) Para - 4 Page 33 to 34 iv) Para - 6.2 Page - 37 to 39 Bank of Baroda ITA Nos. 3409 & 3412/Mum/2023 - AY 2010-11 & 201314- Order dated 1007-2024 3 to 5 18- 21 4-7 Deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) Para - 7 Page - 17 to 20 i) Para - 7 Page - 14 to 16 ii) Para -3 Page - 31 iii) Para - 6 Page - 35 iv) Para - 6.4 Page 43 ICICI Bank Limited ITA No.3215/Mum/2019 - AY 2010-11 - Order dated 22-082022 10 75- 76 Union Bank of India 2024 (11) TMI 1188 -ITAT MUMBAI 8 & 9 82- 84 8 RBI Penalty Para - 8 Page - 20 to 21 i) Para - 8 Page - 17 to 18 ii) Para -4 Page - 31 iii) Para - 7 Page - 35 iv) Para - 6.5 Page 43 IDBI Bank ITA No.3394/Mum/2019 - AY 2015-16 - Order Dt. 09-022021 12 & 12.1 26- 28 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter afresh. Considering the judicial precedents cited by the ld. Counsel in the case of Sanjay Sawhney (supra), we are inclined to consider the oral application made by the ld. Counsel by referring to Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, whereby it is contested that the impugned assessment order is invalid being passed on a non-existing entity for which all the facts are already on record and it goes to the root of the matter. 37.1. For this, reference was made to the impugned assessment order wherein in the cause title, it is addressed to "Dena Bank, Branch- Revdanda, Revdanda, Raigad - 402202, Maharashtra, India. Also, ld. Assessing Officer himself in para-3.1 has taken note of the amalgamation of Dena Bank with Bank of Baroda, i.e., the assessee bank. He mentions in para-3.1 that the scheme of amalgamation was approved by Government of India vide its gazette dated 02.01.2019 with the effective date from 01.04.2019 whereby Dena Bank assessed to tax in Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai was transferred Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai where the assessee bank is assessed. He has made specific mention in para- 3.3 about Dena Bank with its PAN, now known as Bank of Baroda with the present PAN of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd. [2022] 443 ITR 194 (SC). Peculiar fact was pointed out from this decision in para-26 wherein Hon'ble Court noted about the time frame of almost three decades at the stage of third appeal when this plea was taken but it held that it being a jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter, it could not restrain from permitting and not adjudicating upon the same, merely on the ground that such a plea is taken after almost three decades. Thus, the Hon'ble Court after taking note of the amalgamation and factual position about the knowledge of the ld. Assessing Officer on the amalgamation, quashed the assessment order as bad in law. 37.4. Before us, it is evident from the impugned assessment order that ld. Assessing Officer is in the knowledge of the amalgamation of Dena Bank into assessee bank, fact of which are already recorded and extracted above from the impugned assessment order. Thus, in the given set of facts, following the judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra) and that of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra), we hold the impugned assessmen....