ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at or prior to hearing of the appeal. 2. Rival contentions have been heard

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for filing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 5. After getting the rectification order, the demand U/s 143(3) of the Act was reduced, but the said order was duly challenged before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) took an observation that the issue is already settled

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for filing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.” 5. After getting the rectification order, the demand U/s 143(3) of the Act was reduced, but the said order was duly challenged before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) took an observation that the issue is already settled

SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

55A of the Act whilst sections 111A and 115AD only provide for determination of tax in certain cases and therefore, gains arising on transactions subjected to STT and those not subjected to STT are no different and satisfy the 'similar computation' condition specified in section 70(2) of the Act. 3. The learned DCIT failed to appreciate that section

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

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

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

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for\nfiling inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.\nITA No.526/Mum/2024\n5. After getting the rectification order, the demand U/s 143(3) of the Act was\nreduced, but the said order was duly challenged before the Ld.CIT(A) and the\nLd.CIT(A) took an observation that the issue is already settled

EMERGING MARKETS GROWTH FUND, INC,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT (IT)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee a non-resident company incorporated under United States of America and registered with the Security and Exchange Board as a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII), filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total loss

BIPINKUMAR V.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, Ito 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aamps4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, Ito 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aakps2945N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(c) of the Act in its order dated 30.12,against which an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) while disposing the appeal of the assessee in the impugned order dated 31.01.2011, confirmed the addition made U/S- 50C of the Act,while considering the cost of improvement, the CIT(A) restricted

CHARU BIPINKUMAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, Ito 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aamps4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, Ito 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aakps2945N (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(c) of the Act in its order dated 30.12,against which an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) while disposing the appeal of the assessee in the impugned order dated 31.01.2011, confirmed the addition made U/S- 50C of the Act,while considering the cost of improvement, the CIT(A) restricted

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. 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 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

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-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

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 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