DCIT -23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BUSINESS EXCELLANCE TRUST, IL AND FS TRUST COMPANY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

section 115U is only applicable to the beneficiaries/investors, if the fund which beneficiaries/investors get from VCF claims exemption u/s. 10(23FB) or vice versa? 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer whereas the VCF is eligible for exemption

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI(INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

gain on sale of listed shares Total 4,07,58,22,095 4. Ld. AO had denied the exemption claimed u/s.10 (23FB) and held that assessee has to fulfill the conditions laid down in Clause (b)(A) of the Explanation. He further observed that – (i) The first condition prescribed by the above section as per clause (b)(A) is that

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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, while computing the business \nprofit, an assessee is entitled to avail the deduction with respect \nto bad debts written off in the books if the following conditions are \nbeing fulfilled:-\n\na. debt in question must be written off as irrecoverable in the \nbooks of accounts for the relevant previous year

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25.1.1, MUMBAI vs. J M FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND II, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

capital gain of J M Financial Property Fund II J M Financial Property Fund II ITA Nos. 1628 & 1626/MUM/2024 Rs.23,00,00,000/-. The assessee also earned interest income . The assessee also earned interest income . The assessee also earned interest income on debentures amounting to Rs.3,98,500/ amounting to Rs.3,98,500/- on its investment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 25.1.1,MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J M FINANCIALS PROPERTY FUND II, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

capital gain of J M Financial Property Fund II J M Financial Property Fund II ITA Nos. 1628 & 1626/MUM/2024 Rs.23,00,00,000/-. The assessee also earned interest income . The assessee also earned interest income . The assessee also earned interest income on debentures amounting to Rs.3,98,500/ amounting to Rs.3,98,500/- on its investment

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

capital in nature. Relevant \nextract from the said decision is as under: \n\n“16. In the present case, the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee \ncannot be said to be a capital expenditure. The second test culled down \nin Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) is that expenditure should \nbring into existence an asset

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

capital asset. Therefore, the reasoning \ngiven by Delhi, Bombay and Gujarat High Courts in respect of members of Clubs \nis based upon correct enunciations of the principles of law as delineated above \nin the judgments of the Supreme Court.” \n[emphasis supplied by us by underline] \n\n16. 2. In the given set of facts and respectfully following the decisions

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD (IN RESPECT OF M.S, ICICI LTD MERGED WITH M.S, ICICI BANK LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

section 115U of the Act. The assessee had furnished details in the prescribed Form No.64 in respect of the gains and losses from the venture capital

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.8435 /मुं/2010("न.व. 2003-04) The Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax ,Cir. 3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Icici Bank Limited, Icici Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla-Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaaci-1195-H .....""तवाद"/Respondent

section 115U of the Act. The assessee had furnished details in the prescribed Form No.64 in respect of the gains and losses from the venture capital

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD), MUMBAI

Capital gains in respect of sale of property. \n\nXV. Additional claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo \nmoto disallowance made during the course of the assessment \nproceedings. \n\nXVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). \n\nXVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic \ntransactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). \n\nXVIII. Disallowance

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

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

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