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

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

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

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

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

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

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

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

xii) of the Act read with Rule 17C of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In this regard, the appellant submitted that the appellant had s regard, the appellant submitted that the appellant had s regard, the appellant submitted that the appellant had received net dividend of received net dividend of Rs.45,04,75,000/- (Rs.48,70,00,000/ (Rs.48

ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of Ld CIT(A). Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 9. Coming to Ground No. 5 which is in respect of method of computation of computing the deduction u/s.36(1)(viii), Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted written

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

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

36(1)(viii). 15. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Revenue's appeal 2004-05 - 2 2006-07 - 3 2007-08 - 3 15.1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions for contingency