HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

2 | As at \nMarch 31, 2004 | As at \nMarch 31, 2005 \nRupees | Rupees | Rupees \n---|---|---\nSPECIAL RESERVE No. I | 194,35,94,700 | 934,35,94,700\nLess: Transfer to Provision for Contingencies | 50,00,00,000 | 40,00,00,000 \nSPECIAL RESERVE No. II | 144,35,94,700 | 194,35,94,700 \nOpening Balance

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n54 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \nfor allocation of notional expenditure. The deductions contemplated are \nthe

ASHWIN AMULAKH PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(1), RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri. Ashwin Amulakh Prekh Acit 22 (1), Mumbai 503, Kailash Palace, Upashraya Lane, Vs. Gharkopar East, Mumbai -400077 Pan No.Aacpp3264F .. Appellant Respondent .. Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Sivaji Ghote, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 09-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 09-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

2) of the Act exceeds the value adopted by this Stamp Valuation Authority refer to in Sub Section (1) of Section 50C of the Act, the value so adopted or assessed by DVO shall be taken as full value of 3 consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. If the fair market value determined

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2)2, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

50C(2) of the Act based on the reports obtained from DVO in respect of the subject mentioned properties. The assessee is at liberty to make all arguments including seeking relief of the tolerance limit of 5% to 10% variation in sale consideratiuon vis-à-vis the consideration fixed by the Stamp Valuation Authority or consideration adopted

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency” as reported in Schedule II of the balance sheet for the year under consideration. According to him, Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

2. Ld. Counsel referred to the first appellate order for Assessment\nYear 2002-03 on the same issue wherein the matter had been set aside\nto the file of ld. Assessing Officer, owing to rectification application\npending before him in this respect. Ld. Assessing Officer was directed\nto decide the rectification application after verification of facts. In the\nyear under

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFAC , DELHI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope\n52 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n53 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld.\nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on\npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income.\nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope\n53\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs

HDFC BANK LIMITED( AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld.\nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on\npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income.\nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope\n\n53\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n53 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

2. "Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) eared in deleting the disallowance of liquidated damages by failing to appreciate that the payment is contractual payment as per submission it is terms and conditions of the agreements entered into between assessee and other parties and liable for TDS which had not been

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

2. "Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) eared in deleting the disallowance of liquidated damages by failing to appreciate that the payment is contractual payment as per submission it is terms and conditions of the agreements entered into between assessee and other parties and liable for TDS which had not been

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld.\nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on\npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income.\nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope\n\n\n52\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Section \n36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section \nwithout making any distinction between reserve created before the \namendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section \neffective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By \nreferring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the \nspecial reserve created and maintained