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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

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

220- 222 of PB) in Appellant's own case. The Tribunal and the High Court have decided the same relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) [(Pg. 1-6 of Legal Paper Book (`LPB')]. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in holding that Appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 2

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

220/- 24.44% of section 10 Interest income on unit scheme 1964 exempt 16,32,987/- 0.50% under sub-section (35) of section 10 Total 32,27,17,773/- 100% 3.14. Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Sec. 115JB(2), only the expenditure relating to income other than income assessable

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 Onc 15,684 1,442,928 1,442,928 785 11,326,985 2

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 Onc 15,684 1,442,928 1,442,928 785 11,326,985 2

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 Onc 15,684 1,442,928 1,442,928 785 11,326,985 2

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

220 13,176,782 13,176,782 785 103,437,739 1,965,888.396 1,862,450.658 1,862,450.658 ICC- Scal M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ITA Nos. 4484, 4485, 4291 & 4293/M/2019 Onc 15,684 1,442,928 1,442,928 785 11,326,985 2

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

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

220/-. The Assessing Officer called on the assessee to explain why the difference of Rs.3,14,24,979/- should not be added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that during the year, the assessee has started a joint research programme on Disruptive Innovation with CCI of USA. The purpose of the programme was to enable company

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

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

220/-. The Assessing Officer called on the assessee to explain why the difference of Rs.3,14,24,979/- should not be added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that during the year, the assessee has started a joint research programme on Disruptive Innovation with CCI of USA. The purpose of the programme was to enable company

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. Ld. Counsel referred to the first appellate order for Assessment Year 2002-03 on the same issue wherein the matter had been set aside to the file of ld. Assessing Officer, owing to rectification application pending before him in this respect. Ld. Assessing Officer was directed to decide the rectification application after verification of facts. In the year under

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

220(2) of the Act for delayed payment of income tax is not allowable as it partakes the character of tax itself as held in Orissa Cement Ltd. v CIT (1993) 200 ITR 636(Del). Similarly it has been held that when tax is not an allowable expenditure , no expenditure in relation to the tax can be allowed as held

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2,68,76,000 Less: Used for issue of Bonus Shares | 1,43,77,167 | 1,94,71,877 | | 50,00,00,000 SHELTER ASSISTANCE RESERVE | 10,64,44,875 | 9,57,14,379 Opening Balance | 4,00,00,000 | 4,00,00,000 Less: Transfer from Profit and Loss Account | 1,75,00,000 | 4,25,00,000 Less

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

depreciation in terms of section 32(2) of the Income-tax Act. 12. The Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Stone Engg. Industries (P.) Ltd. [1996] 220

GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation in earlier years to be set off against income under the head Income from Other sources. 7. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that this issue relates to adjudication of the revenue’s issue in respect to addition estimated by CIT(A) of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act and the issue

DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI vs. GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Tax, Circle-9(1), Mumbai. Off Turner Road, Bandra (West), Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 018. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Pan:Aaacg1255E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation in earlier years to be set off against income under the head Income from Other sources. 7. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that this issue relates to adjudication of the revenue’s issue in respect to addition estimated by CIT(A) of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act and the issue

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2. It is noted that an amendment was brought into section 36(1)(viii) w.e.f. 01.04.1998 whereby assessee alongwith creation of reserve was also required to maintain the said reserve. A corresponding amendment was also brought to section 41(4A) which reads as under: “41(4A). where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve created