DCIT RG. 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

disallowed the VRS expenses be deferred and amortized expenses over a period of time. The assessee claimed that these expenses are allowable in view of Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Page 17 of 34 ITA No.4657&4826/Mum/2004 Bhor Industries Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 0180 (Bom). The CIT(A) after going through the decision

ICICI BANK LTD. vs. DCIT RANGE 3(1),

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

disallowed the VRS expenses be deferred and amortized expenses over a period of time. The assessee claimed that these expenses are allowable in view of Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Page 17 of 34 ITA No.4657&4826/Mum/2004 Bhor Industries Ltd. (2003) 264 ITR 0180 (Bom). The CIT(A) after going through the decision

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

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

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

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

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee for all the years\nunder consideration stands allowed

disallowances\nmade by the Ld.AO under various heads vis-à-vis the requirements\nunder section 11 of the act.\n3.3.1. Ground No.4, 9 is without prejudice ground wherein the\nassessee is challenging the applicability of requirements under\nsection 11 (4A

WARTSILA INDIA PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 15 (3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A on actual basis which are available at page 86 of the paper book and extracted for ready perusal as under: “The Assessee has on its own estimated and worked out expenditure disallowable u/s.!4A

WARTSILA INDIA PVT LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A on actual basis which are available at page 86 of the paper book and extracted for ready perusal as under: “The Assessee has on its own estimated and worked out expenditure disallowable u/s.!4A

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

disallowance of business expenses and addition for unexplained jewelry were partly or wholly deleted based on case law and circulars. The Revenue's appeal concerning commission was dismissed.", "result": "Assessee's appeals allowed (fully/partly), Revenue's appeal dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 132", "Section 153A", "Section 143(3)", "Section 41", "Section 68", "Section 69", "Section 10(4A

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

4A). where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve \ncreated and maintained under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, any \namount subsequently withdrawn from such special reserve shall be deemed to \nbe the profits and gains of business of profession and accordingly be chargeable \nto income-tax as the income of the previous

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

4A). where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve \ncreated and maintained under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, any \namount subsequently withdrawn from such special reserve shall be deemed to \nbe the profits and gains of business of profession and accordingly be chargeable \n\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \n\nto income

ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. KARAN R. SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

disallowance by the AO. Further from the ratio of above judgment of Honorable Supreme Court as well as of the Honorable Bombay High Court it is also clearly that once an appellant maintains kis own regular books of accounts and no such mention of expenses in Mac-book or bills are-- found in appellant's premises regularly assessed to Income

HIFZUR REHMAN ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos 2460,2462, 2657,\n2676 & 2677/Mum/2024 are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee\nbearing C

Section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act, denying it exemption. The AO also disallowed certain provisions and set-asides

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

4A). where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve \ncreated and maintained under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, any \namount subsequently withdrawn from such special reserve shall be deemed to \nbe the profits and gains of business of profession and accordingly be chargeable \n\n55 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007

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

4A). where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve \ncreated and maintained under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, any \namount subsequently withdrawn from such special reserve shall be deemed to \nbe the profits and gains of business of profession and accordingly be chargeable \n\nto income-tax as the income

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

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 37(1) of the Act. It is trite that assessment proceedings before taxing authority are to assess correct tax liability. However, in the present case, the AO as well as learned DRP did not entertain the claim of the assessee in view of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), without going into the merits