DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

d)\nGround No. 4 to 4.5: Disallowance of INR\n47,17,99,596/- in respect of discount extended to\npre-paid distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the\nAct\n(e) Ground No. 5 to 5.5: Disallowance of deduction under\nSection 80IA of the Act\n(f) Ground No. 6 to 6.3: Disallowance of deduction under\nSection

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

d)\nGround No. 4 to 4.5: Disallowance of INR\n47,17,99,596/- in respect of discount extended to\npre-paid distributors under Section 40(a)(ia) of the\nAct\n(e) Ground No. 5 to 5.5: Disallowance of deduction under\nSection 80IA of the Act\n(f) Ground No. 6 to 6.3: Disallowance of deduction under\nSection

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

253. The book profit was determined at ₹ 1,622,908,042/–. ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. 8. Assessee preferred an objection before the learned dispute resolution panel – 2, Mumbai – 2 (the learned DRP) who issued directions on 18/3/2021. The learned DRP: – i. On the issue of imputation of interest of ₹ 330,700,842/– on advances

MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADBURY INDIA LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

D E R Per Padmavathy S (AM): These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range- 5(1)(2), Mumbai under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income- tax Ac, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 24/11/2017

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

1 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 076. Ground number 2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

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

1 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 076. Ground number 2 is against disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys

O.C TANNER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is, accordingly, he appeal is, accordingly, allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 O.C. Tanner India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(1), No. 2, Lave 7 Tower 2, Phase Ii, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raiaskaran Techpark Andheri Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Sakinaka S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aabco 1031 F Appellant Respondent

1, 2010, which has expired before the current financial year. No evidence of any extension of the Inter financial year. No evidence of any extension of the Inter financial year. No evidence of any extension of the Inter- Company agreement has been provided before the TPO or the Company agreement has been provided before the TPO or the Company agreement

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

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

section 14A regardless of whether they are direct or indirect, fixed or variable and managerial or financial in accordance with law. It is further evident that deduction in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to exempt income and taxable income has to be determined as per mechanism laid down in section 14A and in accordance with

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n7\nITA Nos.7532/MUM/2004 & others\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nAYs 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001-02\nCorporate Deposits\n1,301,388,075\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\n2,761,916\nIDBI Deposits\n92,632,663\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\n774,655,522\nGovernment Securities\n127

DCIT, CIRCLE 3 4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly\nallowed for all the three

1. Ld. CIT(A) after examining the detailed submission made and case\nlaws relied on by assessee observed that assessee is following a\nmercantile system of accounting under which ‘Matching Principle' is one\nof the fundamental accounting principles requiring the assessee to\nrecognize expenditure which are corresponding to revenue recognised\nin books of accounts, to present true and fair picture

M/S GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment made in respect\nof exports made to M/s Glenmark, South Africa and M/s Glenmark, Mexico.\n9.\nThe next issue relates to the deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act.\nThis is a common issue urged in appeal before us by both the parties.\n9.1 The facts relating to this issue are that the assessee had claimed

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

price in excess of the value of the bond cannot be\nsaid to be attached to the instrument or transaction. It arises independently and de\nhors the terms of the instrument. A claim cannot be made in respect thereof by the\nholder of the instrument/promisee against the issuer of the security, bond or\ndebenture as it is not a right

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

price in excess of the value of the bond cannot be\nsaid to be attached to the instrument or transaction. It arises independently and de\nhors the terms of the instrument. A claim cannot be made in respect thereof by the\nholder of the instrument/promisee against the issuer of the security, bond or\ndebenture as it is not a right

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\n1,301,388,075\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\n2,761,916\nIDBI Deposits\n92,632,663\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\n774,655,522\nGovernment Securities\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\n1,225,179\nDiscount

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n2\n3\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills\nLease Rentals\nDividend Income\nProfit on Sale of Investment\nProfit on redemption of Debentures/Govt.\nSecurities\nProfit on sale of Debentures/Govt

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills

DCIT 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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n2\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills\nLease Rentals\nDividend Income\nProfit on Sale of Investment\nProfit on redemption of Debentures/Govt.\nSecurities\nProfit on sale of Debentures/\nSecurities