HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to other provisions, since fiction created by the \nlegislature has to be confined to the purpose to which it is created. Also, \nthat section 54E does not make any distinction between depreciable \nassets

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

gain of Rs. 53,52,891 or such other lesser figure than has been assessed as is held correct as a result of the transfer of Plot no. GROUND NO. 7 The learned CIT(A) has with respect to the international transaction pertaining to export of Rifampacin to associated enterprises, erred in not adopting the 'class of transactions approach

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

80M and 80-0. The order of the CIT(A) on this issue is accordingly set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 29.2 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, these grounds, namely 27 to 30 A, are allowed‖. Respectfully following the earlier order of the Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

80M and 80-0. The order of the CIT(A) on this issue is accordingly set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 29.2 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, these grounds, namely 27 to 30 A, are allowed‖. Respectfully following the earlier order of the Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

gains arising from\nthe transfer of Plot no. 2 amounted to Rs. 17,99,02,095 by\nadopting the fair market value of the asset transferred as at\n01.04.1981 at the rate of Rs.5.85 per sq.ft. (Rs.63 per sq.mtr.)\n(b) The CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to compute capital\ngain

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

capital gains and payment of advance tax in relation thereto. Considering the same, the matter is remitted to the file of the AO to recompute the interest u/s 234C taking into consideration the TDS as well as the proviso to section 234C of the Act. The ground of appeal is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

capital gains and payment of advance tax in relation thereto. Considering the same, the matter is remitted to the file of the AO to recompute the interest u/s 234C taking into consideration the TDS as well as the proviso to section 234C of the Act. The ground of appeal is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result

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

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

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Gains of Business or Profession',\nand accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.\n79. Ground No. 5 -Treating penalty charges recovered from suppliers of capital\ngoods as capital receipts and therefore not chargeable to tax and also not to be\ndeducted from the cost of asset: Rs. 8, 12,530/-\n80.\nGround no. 5 raised by the revenue

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

gain of Rs.1,01,78,11,054/-. Income u/s 115JB of the Act was computed at Rs.25,99,34,31,825/-. 6.1. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26/12/2008 wherein income was assessed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

gain of Rs.1,01,78,11,054/-. Income u/s 115JB of the Act was computed at Rs.25,99,34,31,825/-. 6.1. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26/12/2008 wherein income was assessed

ADDL CIT SP RG 22, MUMBAI vs. DSP MERRILL LYNCH LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains written by the assessee on sale of shares as income under the head business income" 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the claim of deduction u/s. 80O of the Act amounting to Rs.7,81,305 as against

DSP MERRILL LYNCH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. RANGE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains written by the assessee on sale of shares as income under the head business income" 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the claim of deduction u/s. 80O of the Act amounting to Rs.7,81,305 as against

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

80M of the Act. VI. Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

80M of the Act. VI. Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains

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

80M of the Act. VI. Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

80M of the Act. VI. Deduction of income by the amount credited to lease equalisation account. VII. Assessment of amount withdrawn from reserve created under section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains