ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viia)/(viib) from A.Y.2013-14.\nThus such an addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act.\n21.\nThe Ld. AR of the appellant has further contended that the\ntransaction is a commercial transaction wherein exiting shareholders\nand independent investors have agreed to participate in business\nventure based on their own understanding of the industry, risk-\nreward matrix and other relevant

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal ITA NO

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. (ii) Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed assessment order, holding that the assessee is neither a primary agricultural credit society nor primary agricultural development bank but is a co–operative bank

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viia)/(viib) from A.Y.2013-14.\nThus such an addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act.\n21.\nThe Ld. AR of the appellant has further contended that the\ntransaction is a commercial transaction wherein exiting shareholders\nand independent investors have agreed to participate in business\nventure based on their own understanding of the industry, risk-\nreward matrix and other relevant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

viia)/(viib) from A.Y.2013-14.\nThus such an addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act.\n21.\nThe Ld. AR of the appellant has further contended that the\ntransaction is a commercial transaction wherein exiting shareholders\nand independent investors have agreed to participate in business\nventure based on their own understanding of the industry, risk-\nreward matrix and other relevant

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

u/s. \n36(1)(viia) of the Act. \n\n29. This issue arises in the following appeals:\n\n Assessment year \nGround No. in \nAssessee's appeal \nGround No. in \nRevenue's appeal \n2018-19 \n- \n2 \n2019-20 \n- \n2 \n2020-21 \n- \n2 \n\n29. 1. In respect of this issue, assessee in its books of account had made

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c)] 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 with

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c)] 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 with

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)] 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 with

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

271(1)(c)] 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 with

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

271(1)(c) | 2006-07 | \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 dealing

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

271(1)(c) 2006-07 \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 dealing

CIDCO EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Cidco Employees Ward 28(1)(3), 3Rd Floor, Co. Op. Credit Society Ground Floor, Tower No. 6, Vs. Cidco Bhavan, Vashi Railway Station, Cbd- Belapur, Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400614. Mumbai- 400703. Pan: Aaaac2230N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. [B] General:-  The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion.  This appeal is filed late and delay may be condoned  A detailed paper book will be filed at the time of hearing.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief

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

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 – AY 2016-17 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 480,76,49,494/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 – AY 2016-17 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 480,76,49,494/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

viia) Disallowance of ESOP of Ground No.5 expenses 2. We will first consider the assessee's appeal for adjudication. ITA No. 1783/Mum/2023 – AY 2016-17 Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned exempt income to the tune of Rs. 480,76,49,494/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) called on the assessee