“liable to tax”

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. N Rose Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

income class who do not have any source of income and have very limited sources to generate income which is not liable to tax under the Act and as per practice, no one deducts TDS on such payments. The assessee further submitted that it is in the redevelopment business ... payment made by the assessee to the tenants of M/s Dalal Estate Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. towards alternate accommodation charges/hardship allowance/rent are liable for tax deduction under section 194IC of the Act. 7. The Id. AR submitted that the provisions of section 45(5A) talks about the consideration paid

Naresh Ganpatalal Jain, Nerul vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Naresh Ganpatalal Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 11-12, Shivaji Chowk, Income Tax, F-1 Sector, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Nerul, Centre, Navi Mumbai Delhi Pan : Adfpj5910L (Appellant) (Respondent)

mistake was corrected while recording capital balance as on 1.4.2010. The Ld A.R further submitted that the refund of stamp duty is not liable to tax, as the assessee has not claimed the payment of stamp duty as expenditure. Accordingly, he submitted the difference in capital account has been duly

Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, Llc, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

effect that losses of assessee's PE in Japan are to be taken into account while computing assessee's total income liable to tax in India. I.T.A. No.3097/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2020-21 19 Now coming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as a separate source of income ... held as under : Now, the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act is that income, profits and gains of an assessee are liable to tax subject to certain exemptions and exceptions. Although certain sums may be exempted from taxation, still they may form part of the total income

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hdfc Bank Ltd., (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Range-1(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Pallon Shapoorji Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

method of accounting from mercantile to cash basis undertaken by assessee is valid in accordance with section 145 and whether assessee is liable to tax on an income which he has not received during the year. 5.1. On the issue relating to change in method of accounting from mercantile

Asia Society India Centre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

brought to tax, it was impressible in law for the Assessing Officer to entertain the belief that such income was liable to tax in a different assessment year. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: “2. Section 10(21) provides

J P Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax It Circle 32(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Trib)] under similar situation, the Assessing Officers rejected Assessee's manner of set-off of STCL in category liable to tax at 15% against STCG taxable at 30%. The Revenue made similar argument as is made in the instant case with regard to expression used in section