BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

price which is one of the two recognized methods of\nvaluation of the closing stock.\n7.5 It cannot be the effect of the RBI guidelines that the total income for the\npurpose of Income Tax has to be computed in accordance with the enjoinment\nof these guidelines. These are only meant as guiding factors to determine the\ncommercial profit

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

36(1)(iii) of the Act. (c) Ground No. 3 to 3.7: Disallowance of INR 30,95,03,786/- in respect of roaming charges under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (d) Ground No. 4 to 4.5: Disallowance of INR 47,17,99,596/- in respect of discount extended to pre-paid distributors under Section

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

36(1)(viii) mentioned in paras 1 and 7 and 6 of your show cause notice respectively are subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) 56, Mumbai filed by the Bank and hence do not come within the purview of revision under section 263. We reiterate that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) is neither

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IT (OSD)10(2)(2)ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and deleted the disallowance of interest and other expenses related to acquisition of share of foreign subsidiary made by the Assessing Officer. As regards transfer pricing

CONCENTRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MINACS PRIVATE LIMITED, MINACS LIMITED & ADITY BIRLA MINACS WORLDWIDE LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and deleted the disallowance of interest and other expenses related to acquisition of share of foreign subsidiary made by the Assessing Officer. As regards transfer pricing

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

price. The Mumbai Tribunal held that excess of appreciation over the cost price would not be considered for valuing the closing stock. In the present case, we are not concerned with a scenario where in the State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 later year the depreciation provided in earlier years is reduced. Further, the decision

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

price. The Mumbai Tribunal held that excess of appreciation over the cost price would not be considered for valuing the closing stock. In the present case, we are not concerned with a scenario where in the State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 later year the depreciation provided in earlier years is reduced. Further, the decision

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

iii) When Section 80-IA/80-IB refers to profits derived from eligible\nbusiness, it is not the ownership of that business which attracts the\nincentives but what attracts the incentives under Section 80-1A/80-IB is\nthe generation of profits (operational profits). Liberty India Ltd. Vs CIT\n[2009] 183 Тахтап 349 (SC)\n(iv) The words "derived from" are narrower

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n21\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act has to be disallowed.”\n5.5. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in the\ncase of the Assessee, the disallowance of interest expenses of\nINR 19,35,01,258/- made by the Assessing Officer under section\n36(1)(iii) of the Act is deleted. Ground No. 2 raised by the\nAssessee is allowed

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act has to be disallowed.”\n5.5. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in the\ncase of the Assessee, the disallowance of interest expenses of\nINR 19,35,01,258/- made by the Assessing Officer under section\n36(1)(iii) of the Act is deleted. Ground No. 2 raised by the\nAssessee is allowed

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n20\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A

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

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

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

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

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

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

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

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

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

section 28(va). The said section is\nheld to be prospective since it is mandatory and not clarificatory in\nnature. We have also taken note of the exception 1 to section 27 of the\nIndian Contract Act, 1872, in respect of agreement in restraint of trade\nwhich otherwise is to be treated as void. In the present case, the\nagreement

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is\n21\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nobliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A