SHRI DILIP J. THAKKAR ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is initiated separately (Addition For A.Y. 2006-07 INR at Rs.10,50,41,824/-) 11. Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO in his detailed order and all his relevant observations; we shall discuss in the subsequent paragraphs. 12. Before us, the assessee representing himself, first of all submitted that

LADDERUP FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarladderup Finance Circle 14(1)(1), Limited Mumbai 1St Floor Hallmark Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Business Plaza, Mumbai-400 020 Gurunanak Hospital Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0882G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

111A, ii. Receipt of large value foreign remittance as reported in Form 15CA, and iii. Sale of property reported in Form 26QB. 3. Notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer issued several notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaires calling for details and explanations

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

u/s. 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 Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

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

u/s. 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 Assessing Officer noted that assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve No. 1 towards “provisions

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 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

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 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

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

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

Section 57(iii) and find that ld.\nUnder the said 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\n53\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs

CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

penalty and increased rate are in the nature of substantive law and not objective law,". ii. In the case of Vatika Township (P) Ltd 367 ITR 466 (SC) it was held that, "Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative

SHIR DILIP J. THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

u/s 132 of the Act in the case of the\nappellant on 10.08.2011 where incriminating\nmaterial in the form of documents, loose papers\netc. were found indicating how Sh. Dilip J. Thakkar\nwas managing and controlling the day to day affairs\nof the Chagganlal Suchak Family Trust (CSFT)\nwhich were corroborated by the statements\nrecorded\nThe appellant was\nmanaging

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

u/s.\n36(1)(viii).\n15. This issue arises in the following appeals:\n Assessment year\nGround No. in\nAssessee's appeal\nGround No. in\nRevenue's appeal\n2004-05\n-\n2\n2006-07\n-\n3\n2007-08\n-\n3\n15. 1. On this issue, ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had\nwithdrawn a sum of Rs.50 Crores from Special Reserve

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFAC , DELHI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said 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\n52 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

271(1)(c) 2006-07 \n\n2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the \nabove table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. \n143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002-\n03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, \nbefore

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

section 54EC in respect of capital gains \narising on depreciable assets. \n\n17. This issue arises in the following appeals: \n\n Assessment year \nGround No. in \nAssessee's appeal \n\nGround No. in \nRevenue's appeal \n2006-07 \n- \n2 \n\n17. 1. Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC \nin respect of short-term capital

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

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

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

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said 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 \n\n52 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

271(1)(c) 2006-07 \n\n2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the \nabove table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. \n143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- \n03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, \nbefore

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

271(1)(c) 2006-07 \n\n2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the \nabove table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. \n143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002-\n03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, \nbefore

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

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\n| Sr

271(1)(c) | 2006-07 \n\n2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the \nabove table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. \n143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- \n03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, \nbefore