ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI V. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

MA 179/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves ICICI Bank Limited appealing against certain decisions made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle 3(1), Mumbai, concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal addressed multiple issues raised by the assessee, including the exclusion of a comparable company, the treatment of interest and administrative expenses disallowed under Rule 8D, and the verification of invoices related to bad debts and NPAs. The Tribunal found that there were typographic errors and omissions in the initial order and directed corrections and further verifications as necessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829725 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt.Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415
• Laws Referred To: Rule 8D(2)(ii), Rule 8D(2)(iii)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: AARTI VISSANJI; AR
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. No. 179/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 4249 /Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2008-09 ICICI Bank Limited ICICI Bank Towers North East Wing 1st Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai - 400034 [PAN: AAACI1195H] Vs. DCIT, Circle – 3(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A/R Respondent by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 31.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 ORDER Per Bench: Present Miscellaneous petition filed by the assesse arises out of order passed by this Tribunal dated 30/04/2025, seeking typographic mistake that has crept in. Issue 1.: The Ld.AR submitted that in at the time of hearing assesse had sought exclusion of Genesys International Corporation Ltd., on functional dissimilarity. It is submitted that in the order passed by this Tribunal the comparable was analyzed based on the observation Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A. No. 179/Mum/2025 of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No.4248/Mum/2014. It is submitted that however, in the finding in para 6.3, this comparable was not mentioned. The Ld.AR submitted that this comparable may also be specifically be excluded. The Ld.DR on the contrary, relied on orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. It is noted that an inadvertent error has crept in para 6.3 as the comparable Genesys International was missed to be mentioned therein. Accordingly, we direct the Ld.AO/TPO to exclude Genesys International from the final list. Accordingly the issue raised in para 3-4 stands allowed. Issue 2: The Ld.AR submitted that while deciding Ground no.3, the Ld.AR had emphasized that the assesse has sufficient own funds that exceed the investments. She submitted that reliance was placed on the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003-04 to 2007-08. She thus submitted that no finding in respect of the same has been given in para 11.3, as the Ld.AO disallowed interest expenses of Rs.594 corors under Rule 8D(2)(ii). Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A. No. 179/Mum/2025 The Ld.AR further submitted that, administrative expenses amounting to Rs.35 Crores has been disallowed by the Ld.AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii). She submitted that the assesse had furnished the working of disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) considering the investment that yielded exempt income. She placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Special bench in case of CIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt.Ltd. reported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 in support of her submissions. The Ld.AR submitted that, there is no categorical finding in respect of this aspect in para 11.3. It is prayed that, as the issue is remanded for necessary verification, clear finding on the above two aspects may also be provided. The Ld.DR on the contrary, relied on orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. Following paragraph shall be read in continuation to para 11.3 in the order passed by this Tribunal dated 30/04/2025: 11.4. The Ld.AO is directed to verify the issues referred to herein above having regard to the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003-04 to 2007-08 and decision of Hon’ble Delhi Special bench in case of CIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt.Ltd.(supra) and to consider the claim in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue raised by the assesse stands allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 4 M.A. No. 179/Mum/2025 Issue 3: The Ld.AR submitted that, while deciding Ground no.4, assesse had raised alternate contention that the loss on account of sale of NPAs to ARCL amounting to Rs.482.67 crs was allowable as business loss. She further submitted that these are voluminous and therefore verifying each and every invoice amounting to Rs.482.67 crs cannot be practically verified. She thus prayed that in respect of retail and corporate bad debts, around 50 invoices randomly may be subjected to verification. We have considered the submissions of the Ld.AR. Based on the submissions of the Ld.AR, we clarify regarding the issue that is remanded in Ground No.4. Following pare shall be read after para 13.5. 13.6. Admittedly, these are very old data and therefore it will be practically impossible to verify each and every invoice. Therefore we direct the Ld.AO to select any 50 random invoices under retail and corporate bad debts for necessary verification. The assesse is directed to furnish the relevant details called for by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO shall consider the issue in accordance with law. The alternate plea of treating the bad debts written off as business loss may also be verified. Accordingly, this issue raised by the assesse stands allowed. Issue 4: The Ld.AR is seeking a direction in respect of Ground No.5 in respect of verification of loan given to individual customers visi-s- Printed from counselvise.com 5 M.A. No. 179/Mum/2025 vis the assets repossessed due to non-payment and sale of such repossessed assets. The Ld.AR submitted that these are very old details and practically impossible to bring all the documents in respect of this issue on record. She thus prayed that in respect of retail and corporate bad debts, around 10 invoices randomly may be subjected to verification. We have considered the submissions of the Ld.AR. Based on the submissions of the Ld.AR, we clarify regarding the issue that is remanded in Ground No.4. Following pare shall be read after para 13.5. 15.5. Admittedly, these are very old data and therefore it will be practically impossible to verify each and every invoice. Therefore we direct the Ld.AO to select any 10 random invoices under retail and corporate bad debts for necessary verification. The assesse is directed to furnish the relevant details called for by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO shall consider the issue in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue raised by the assesse stands allowed. In the result the miscellaneous petition filed by the assesse stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/01/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Printed from counselvise.com 6 M.A. No. 179/Mum/2025 Mumbai Dated: 13/01/2026 SC Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "