DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE TRANSPORT AND TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

disallowed on the ground of personal use in the hands of the assessee company. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly concluded that the yacht was not used by the assessee for its own personal use as it has operated the yacht for the benefit and use of companies or entities paying operating fee as per the agreement. 12. Insofar

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

disallowed deduction u/s. 54F to the tune of Rs. 6.5 crores by holding that sale of units 24, 25 and 26 I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 at Pearl Center, Dadar, Mumbai which were used by the assessee for commercial purposes for his clinc and on which depreciation was also claimed by the assessee u/s 32 of the 1961 Act is to be treated

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

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance on the ground that it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16. 2. In this respect

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

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

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 and maintained under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance on the ground that it is in the nature of capital expenditure, not covered by section 37(1). Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 682 (Bom). 16. 2. In this respect

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section along with corresponding amendment u/s.41(1A) which are effective from Assessment Year 1998-99. Assessee had explained this aspect before the ld. Assessing Officer by clarifying that special reserve had been created over the years out of the profits and “Special Reserve No. I Account” relates to amount which had been transferred up to financial year 1997-98. Thus

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowance under Rule 14A in accordance with the decision of special bench of Delhi Tribunal in Vireet Investment. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue in its appeal is dismissed and consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee in its cross objection is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA 1348/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) (Assesses Appeal) 14. In assessee

TRAVOTEL (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri J P Boaz & Shri Amit Shukla

Disallowance under section 14A. "ावोटेल (इं"डया) "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड 2 Travotel (India) Pvt Ltd 2. The brief facts qua the issue of validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business of running of a hotel. It has filed its return of income on 1st November, 2004 showing total income

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VOLTAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

disallowed the claim and held that in view of Section 50 of the Act, the gain is in the nature of short term capital gain. 3. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent assessee to set off its long term losses in terms of Section 74 of the Act against

MR.LEMES E. D'SOUZA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 21(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5802/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10) Mr. Lemes E. D’ Souza, Ito – Ward 21(3)(3), बनाम/ Alk Bricks Factory Room No. 507, 5 Th Floor, V. Company, C-11, Pratyakshakar Behind Sakinaka, Bhavan, Motor Training School, B.K.C. Bandra, Opp. Janseva Decoilers, Mumbai – 400 051. Sakinaka, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadpd7091 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 54E of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied this exemption on the ground that the capital gain arose in respect of transfer of the original asset prior to March 31, 1983, when the UTI Capital Gains Scheme, 1983, was not in force. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance

DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S VOLTAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 8(3)(1) V. M/S. Voltas Limited Room No. 615 Voltas House, A Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Rod Mumbai - 400020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033 Pan: Aaacv2809D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By : Shri Milind Chavan

disallowed the claim and held that in view of Section 50 of the Act, the gain is in the nature of short term capital gain. 3. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent assessee to set off its long term losses in terms of Section 74 of the Act against