ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SOYUMM MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

section 56(2)(viia), provision of rule 11UA are applicable and as per clause (c) of sub rule (1) of 11UA, no specific formula for the valuation of such shares is prescribed. The assesse has to obtain the valuation report from the CA or merchant banker. 10.7 In this case the appellant has obtained the valuation report from

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SPECTRA REALTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA no

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 V/S Spectra Realities Private Limited, 9, Floor-I, Plot – 51, Kapadia Chamber, Devji Ratansi Marg, ……………… Respondent Chinchbunder, Mumbai – 400009 Pan: Aalcs7233B Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) Room No.653, Aaykar Bhawan, Churchgate, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

section 56(2)(viia), provision of rule 11UA are applicable and as per clause (c) of sub rule (1) of 11UA, no specific formula for the valuation of such shares is prescribed. The assesse has to obtain the valuation report from the CA or merchant banker. 10.7 In this case the appellant has obtained the valuation report from

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

viia) of the Act and CBDT notification dated 29/11/2012. This provision however has no relevance in the present assessment year and as such needs no deliberation at this stage. 3 I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (iii) The assessee company's return of income filed for the current year as well as the preceding year shows consistent losses. In this scenario the valuation done

BLOOM PACKAGING P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

viia) & 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 13. Similarly, we analyse the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act. These provisions imply the arising of any benefit / perquisite to the assessee-firm. On facts of the present case, we find, there is no such any benefit or perquisite to the assessee firm by transfer of shares

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

56,399 a) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned expenditure is related to business and is of revenue nature and accordingly. the same should have been allowed under section 37(1) of the Act.” 2.1 The revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee under section 3 under section

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee under section 3 under section

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

56,399\na) The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the aforementioned\nexpenditure is related to business and is of revenue nature and accordingly. the\nsame should have been allowed under section 37(1) of the Act.”\nThe revenue has raised the following grounds: -\nITA No. 683/Bang/2015\n“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is opposed

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

viia) of the Act. XXII. Deduction of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. XXIII. Addition of interest income on income-tax refund. XXIV. Dropping penalty proceeding initiated u/s.270A of the Act. XXV. Penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) on disallowance on deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) 3. Relevant grounds for each of the assessment years, both in the case

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

viia) of the Act. X X II. Deduction of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. X X III. Addition of interest income on income-tax refund. X X IV. Dropping penalty proceeding initiated u/s.270A of the Act. X X V. Penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) on disallowance on deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) 3. Relevant grounds for each

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

viia) of the Act. XXII. Deduction of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. XXIII. Addition of interest income on income-tax refund. XXIV. Dropping penalty proceeding initiated u/s.270A of the Act. XXV. Penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) on disallowance on deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) 3. Relevant grounds for each of the assessment years, both in the case

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

viia) of the Act. XXII. Deduction of bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. XXIII. Addition of interest income on income-tax refund. XXIV. Dropping penalty proceeding initiated u/s.270A of the Act. XXV. Penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) on disallowance on deduction u/s.36(1)(viii) 3. Relevant grounds for each of the assessment years, both in the case

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

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

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. 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

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