MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

TDS)-2(3), Mumbai on 10th February, 2011. During the course of the survey it was found that assessee received lease premium against the property from different parties. In this regard assessee was asked to furnish details of lease premium. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: - “The Authority has auctioned land in Bandra Kurla Complex

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)

viii) Discussion with the Senior Executives of the company. (ix) Working capital requirement based on Management's plans and projections; (x) Capital expenditures requirements based on Management's plans and projections etc. The three methods which are commonly used in this kind of a valuation of shares are: (a) The Profit Earning Capacity Value (PECV) Method, which presumes the continuity

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

TDS is deducted @ 30% therefore is high demand of refund. 4.5.1. We find that the ld AO after considering the submissions filed by the assessee, passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016, accepting the income declared in the return of income. We find that the ld AO had duly accepted to the nature of business

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, the Dy. CIT had passed an order under section 154 of the Act (see pages 3-5 of Factual paper book-1). 4 25.08.2003 The Dy. CIT issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, selecting the Assessee’s ROI for scrutiny (see page 6 of Factual paper book-1). 5 17.10.2003 The Addl. CIT (Transfer Pricing

DEVIKA RAJESH JAGGI,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT RANGE-19, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act which are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid, he pleaded that the order dated 25.03.2022, passed by the PCIT be quashed. In support, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed reliance upon the following decisions/judgments – (i) Narayan Tatu Rane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

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

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

viii) Saudi Arabia (ix) Taiwan 5.3. In view of the above mentioned decision, credit for foreign tax paid shall be eligible only for nine countries listed above. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision for the A.Y.2009-10 in assessee‟s own case, the ground No.3 raised by the assessee and ground No.8 raised by the Revenue are disposed of in the above

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

viii) Saudi Arabia (ix) Taiwan 5.3. In view of the above mentioned decision, credit for foreign tax paid shall be eligible only for nine countries listed above. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision for the A.Y.2009-10 in assessee‟s own case, the ground No.3 raised by the assessee and ground No.8 raised by the Revenue are disposed of in the above

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

viii). GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT 21 Taxmann.com 25 (Hyd) (ix). KMC Constructions Ltd. v. ACIT 21 Taxmann.com 138 (Hyd). ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. No. 259 & 260/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., 6. Ld. AR submitted that out of the nine projects, six projects (namely Koyna project, Bheema Lift Irrigation project, Kameng Hydro Electric Project Package

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

viii). GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT 21 Taxmann.com 25 (Hyd) (ix). KMC Constructions Ltd. v. ACIT 21 Taxmann.com 138 (Hyd). ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. No. 259 & 260/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., 6. Ld. AR submitted that out of the nine projects, six projects (namely Koyna project, Bheema Lift Irrigation project, Kameng Hydro Electric Project Package

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

viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 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

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 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

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 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

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

viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 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