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

271(1)(c) 2006-07 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before dealing

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in course of cross examination had stated that bill relating to impugned shares of MIs. Robinson Impex Ltd were not genuine. (iii) U/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books of account

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in course of cross examination had stated that bill relating to impugned shares of MIs. Robinson Impex Ltd were not genuine. (iii) U/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books of account

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) 2006-07 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before dealing

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

271(1)(c) 2006-07 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before dealing

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

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

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

ANJALI PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

271/- Rs.15,84,736/- 2 2003-04 Rs.10,88,547 Rs.11,38,317/- 3 2004-05 RS.69.35.295/- Rs.70,93,594/- 4 2005-06 Rs.49 ,99,180/- Rs.49,83,050/- 5 2006-07 Rs.6,54,961/- Rs.7,25,513/- Penalty proceedings already initiated by the AO will now cover the enhanced income on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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

271(1)(c) 2006-07 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before dealing

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) 2006-07 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before dealing

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) | 2006-07 | 2. Except for appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.24 and 39 to 42 in the above table, all the appeals arise out of assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for assessment years 2002- 03 up to 2020-21. Since, similar issues are arising in several years, before dealing

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was claimed. 4 The Assessing Officer has held that neither the purchase nor sale of shares were genuine and that the amount of Rs.1,41,08,484/- stated to have been received by the Assessee on sale of shares was undisclosed income and accordingly made addition under section 69 of the Income

WELSPUN MERCANTILE LTD.(NOW MERGED WITH M/S. MGN AGRO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 8 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no\norder as to costs

271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal.”\nFrom the above grievance it can be seen that both the parties are\naggrieved on the disallowance u/s 14A and the treatment of gains from\nsale of shares.\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME

DCIT ,CC- 3 (3), MUMBAI vs. WELSPUN MERCANTILE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no\norder as to costs

271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal.\"\nFrom the above grievance it can be seen that both the parties are\naggrieved on the disallowance u/s 14A and the treatment of gains from\nsale of shares.\n\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE

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

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