ACIT CENTRAL CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARIANA INFRASTRUCTURTE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Mariana Infrastructure Of Income Tax, Central Limited, M-62 &63, Circle -6(4) 1St Floor, Connaught Room No. 1925, 19Th Place, New Delhi Floor, Air India Building, 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafcm2619H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ajay Chandra Respondent By : K. Gopal Date Of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Claim Of Deduction Of Revenue Of Cancelled Transaction Of Rs.27,78,65,132/- Cancelled In Subsequent Year From The Book Profit Though Section 115Jb Is A Self-Contained Code Where Even The Additions & Deductions From The Book Profit Are Specified The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Des Not Allow Any Such Deductions?."

54E could yet be taxed wider section 115J. It is also stated by the appellant that the appellant has not claimed the reversal of revenue in the tax return of AY 2018-19. ITA No.2395/Mum/20121 A.Y. 2017-18 7 The ACIT, CC-6(4) Vs. Mariana Infrastructure Ltd. 5.3.3 The facts of the case are that the appellant entered into

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

TDS and taxes paid by the assessee. Hence, learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was correct in not taking care of this issue. He declined to adjudicate merits of the issues raised. He referred to the earlier order of learned CIT(A) dated 30.1.2009, wherein learned CIT(A) has held that he agreed with

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

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

TDS was deducted therefore the payments cannot be treated as brokerage income of the Assessee. The Assessee also claimed that the AO was orally requested to allow the Assessee to cross examine the Directors of VIPL or VPPL. However, the AO, without giving any opportunity to the Assessee to cross-examination has made the said addition. The Assessee before

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

54E does not make any distinction between depreciable assets and non-depreciable assets. Benefit of section is available to the assessee irrespective of the fact that computation of capital gains is done either u/s.48 and 49 or u/s.50. Legal fiction created by the statute is to deem capital gain as short-term capital gain and not to deem the asset

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

54E does not make any distinction between depreciable assets and non-depreciable assets. Benefit of section is available to the assessee irrespective of the fact that computation of capital gains is done either u/s.48 and 49 or u/s.50. Legal fiction created by the statute is to deem capital gain as short-term capital gain and not to deem the asset

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 36(1)(viii) w.e.f. 01.04.1998 whereby assessee alongwith creation of reserve was also required to maintain the said reserve. A corresponding amendment was also brought to section 41(4A) which reads as under: “41(4A). where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve created and maintained under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section

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

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

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

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

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. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained

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

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

TDS has been deducted. 61. In so far as trade discount & cash discounts, in order to promote the sales, the assessee provided discounts to dealers which are given in the bill itself either as trade discounts or M/s. Asian Paints as per the general trade practice as cash discounts for immediate payment of sale invoice. These trade discounts / cash discounts

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section along with corresponding amendment u/s.41(1A) which are effective from Assessment Year 1998-99. Assessee had explained this aspect before the ld. Assessing Officer by clarifying that special reserve had been created over the years out of the profits and “Special Reserve No. I Account” relates to amount which had been transferred up to financial year 1997-98. Thus

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

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\n| Sr

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\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs