ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

36(1)(va), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of capital gains, grant of credit

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

36(1)(va), disallowance under\nsection 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of\ncapital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source, and levy\nof interest under sections 234B and 234C. Additions and\ndisallowances were made year-wise, and penalty proceedings\nunder section 270A were initiated wherever applicable.\n4. Aggrieved by the respective assessment orders, the assessee

ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

capital amounting to Rs. 14, 61,710/- and entrance fees and subscriptions paid at clubs amounting to Rs. 1,18,95,580/-. These claims of the assessee were duly reported by the Tax Auditor in his Tax Audit Report vide clause 21(a) and 21(b). In the given situation clause (iv) of section 143(1

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

va) in respect of LWF amounting\nto Rs. 31,812/- be deleted and the AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 16, 16,236/-\nu/s. 43B of the Act.\n5. without prejudice to the above, such adjustment / disallowance is outside scope and\nbeyond the provisions of section 143(1) and needs to be deleted.\nITA No. 4056/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2012-13

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

capital receipt. In fact, in order to put an end\nto the litigation, Parliament stepped into specifically tax such receipts under\nnon-competition agreement with effect from 1-4-2003.\n8. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the\nKarnataka High Court dated 29-10-2009 and restore the order of the Tribunal.\nConsequently, the civil

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Capital Gains (LTCG) to the extent of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- and the finance cost disallowed to the extent of Rs. 9,06,801/-. The AO passed the final assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised various grounds and sub-grounds with regard

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

36(1)(va), disallowance under\nsection 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 43B, computation of\ncapital gains, grant of credit for tax deducted at source, and levy\nof interest under sections 234B and 234C. Additions and\ndisallowances were made year-wise, and penalty proceedings\nunder section 270A were initiated wherever applicable.\n4. Aggrieved by the respective assessment orders, the assessee

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

gainful understanding and force from the decisions of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the ld. Counsel as discussed\nabove, we find that in the present case, the amount received by the\nassessee as non-compete fee under a negative covalent is a capital\nreceipt. We are in agreement with the ld. Counsel for the submissions\nmade

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

gainful understanding and force from the decisions of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the ld. Counsel as discussed\nabove, we find that in the present case, the amount received by the\nassessee as non-compete fee under a negative covalent is a capital\nreceipt. We are in agreement with the ld. Counsel for the submissions\nmade

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

gains and the industrial undertaking or business then the assessee\nwould be eligible to get a deduction u/s.801A.\n40. Now coming to the merits in assessee's case, on perusal of the records we\nnotice that the assessee has segregated the income from investments between\nthe business of housing finance and other income and the basis for the\nsegregation

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

Gains\"\nand section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer of capital assets,\npursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the purview of section 45 of\nthe Act. Therefore, we are of the view that these provisions have no\nrelevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Gains\"\nand section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer of capital assets,\npursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the purview of section 45 of\nthe Act. Therefore, we are of the view that these provisions have no\nrelevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out-goings forming part of the assessees' liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these alone

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

capital receipt. The Assessing Officer is\ndirected to recompute the income of the Assessee accordingly. In\nterms of the aforesaid Additional Ground No. 2 to 2.1 raised by the\nAssessee are allowed.\n14.\nAdditional Ground No. 3.\n“3.1 On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned AO erred in treating Education cess

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

1 of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 23. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A), taking - note of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT V s. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait in ITA No.4404 and 1883/Mum/2004 dated

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

1 of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. 23. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) reiterating the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A), taking - note of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT V s. Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait in ITA No.4404 and 1883/Mum/2004 dated