INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

1 raised by the Assessee pertains to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 6.1. The facts relevant to the adjudication of the issues for consideration are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee has shown substantial investments in shares & mutual funds for the purpose of earning dividend income, long term capital gains and interest

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed interest under\nsection 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs.52,62,28,121 as against the claim of the\nassessee that it has short claimed the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) in the\nreturn of income with notes for Rs. 11,36,88,893. For ease of reference, the\ndeduction claimed by the assessee in the return

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

1)(viii). Also, in\nrespect of other expenses we set aside the allocation done by the ld.\nAssessing Office on ad-hoc basis in the ratio of 80:20 towards income\nfrom housing finance and income other than from housing finance\nand adopt the recomputed ratio in terms of our directon. Considering\nour observations and findings, certain income has been

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

1)(viii). Also, in\nrespect of other expenses we set aside the allocation done by the ld.\nAssessing Office on ad-hoc basis in the ratio of 80:20 towards income\nfrom housing finance and income other than from housing finance\nand adopt the recomputed ratio in terms of our directon. Considering\nour observations and findings, certain income has been

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

1)(viii). Also, in\nrespect of other expenses we set aside the allocation done by the ld.\nAssessing Office on ad-hoc basis in the ratio of 80:20 towards income\nfrom housing finance and income other than from housing finance\nand adopt the recomputed ratio in terms of our directon. Considering\nour observations and findings, certain income has been

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

1)(viii). Also, in\nrespect of other expenses we set aside the allocation done by the ld.\nAssessing Office on ad-hoc basis in the ratio of 80:20 towards income\nfrom housing finance and income other than from housing finance\nand adopt the recomputed ratio in terms of our directon. Considering\nour observations and findings, certain income has been

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

1)(viii). Also, in\nrespect of other expenses we set aside the allocation done by the ld.\nAssessing Office on ad-hoc basis in the ratio of 80:20 towards income\nfrom housing finance and income other than from housing finance\nand adopt the recomputed ratio in terms of our directon. Considering\nour observations and findings, certain income has been

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

1)(viii). Also, in\nrespect of other expenses we set aside the allocation done by the ld.\nAssessing Office on ad-hoc basis in the ratio of 80:20 towards income\nfrom housing finance and income other than from housing finance\nand adopt the recomputed ratio in terms of our directon. Considering\nour observations and findings, certain income has been

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the interest and other expenses incurred for acquisition of shares of a subsidiary company. 23.1. Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 is identical to Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dismissed hereinabove

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the interest and other expenses incurred for acquisition of shares of a subsidiary company. 23.1. Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 is identical to Ground No. 2 raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 which has been dismissed hereinabove

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 5(1) of the Act in the case of a resident, the total income, inter-alia, includes all income from whatever sources derived which accrues or arises to him outside India during the year. As per the assessee, it is entitled to receive the Royalty from its overseas subsidiaries @3% on the net sales price of products sold

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 5(1) of the Act in the case of a resident, the total income, inter-alia, includes all income from whatever sources derived which accrues or arises to him outside India during the year. As per the assessee, it is entitled to receive the Royalty from its overseas subsidiaries @3% on the net sales price of products sold

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

disallowance u/s 41(1)(a) amounting to Rs.6,10,230/-. Thereby determining the total income in the hands of the assessee at Rs.34,30,85,760/-. 2.1 Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the DRP. The DRP dismissed the contentions of the assessee in respect of the grounds raised therein and upheld the proposed addition

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the building expenses of Rs. 1,62,835/- Page 28 of 90 are not liable to be taken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving at the real income of the assessee