BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove." 7. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala

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

VIA and an amount not exceeding 10% of the aggregate average advances made by the rural branches. Thus the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) being a deduction linked to the total income computed it is subject to revision each time the total income changes viz. increases /decreases subject to the provision created in the books of accounts and that

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 (including opening (including opening credit balance of the provision of the bad credit balance of the provision of the bad debts created us 36(1)(viia) of the act, although, the opening debts created us 36

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

transfer pricing adjustment. Thus, the adjustments made \nby ld. TPO and added by the ld. Assessing Officer were deleted. \n\n83 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n25. 2. We note that there is no dispute in respect of impugned \ntransactions falling within the definition of SDT under clause (i) of \nsection

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD., MUMBAI

via) the rural advances given by Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd.\n(BFIL) an NBFC which got amalgamated with the assessee company from the\nappointed date 01.01.2018 should be included. The CIT(A) gave partial relief to the\nassessee with regard to the various disallowances made by the AO. With regard to\nfresh claim made towards deduction under section 36(1

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

via) the rural advances given by Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd.\n(BFIL) an NBFC which got amalgamated with the assessee company from the\nappointed date 01.01.2018 should be included. The CIT(A) gave partial relief to the\nassessee with regard to the various disallowances made by the AO. With regard to\nfresh claim made towards deduction under section 36(1

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

price to NIL arbitrarily and MTM loss arising out of\nrevaluation/fair value adjustment is not applicable as\nthere is no market?\"\n6. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred company, i.e., Tata Sons Ltd. He also pointed out to the difference in logo and trade mark as noted by ld. TPO in his order. It was thus, contended that brand of “Tata Consultancy Services” is owned by the assessee and not by Tata Sons Ltd. Thus, assessee has got its own brand value and has incorporated its valuation

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

36 of the Act, for computing income under the head, "Income from Business and Profession". 16. For claiming benefit under section 80G, deductions are considered at the stage of computing "Total taxable income". Even if any payments under section 80G forms part of CSR payments(keeping in mind ineligible deduction expressly provided u/s.80G), the same would already stand excluded while

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

36 of the Act, for computing income under the head, "Income from Business and Profession". 16. For claiming benefit under section 80G, deductions are considered at the stage of computing "Total taxable income". Even if any payments under section 80G forms part of CSR payments(keeping in mind ineligible deduction expressly provided u/s.80G), the same would already stand excluded while

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

36 of the Act, for computing income under the head, "Income from Business and Profession". 16. For claiming benefit under section 80G, deductions are considered at the stage of computing "Total taxable income". Even if any payments under section 80G forms part of CSR payments(keeping in mind ineligible deduction expressly provided u/s.80G), the same would already stand excluded while

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

36 of the Act, for computing income under the head, "Income from Business and Profession". 16. For claiming benefit under section 80G, deductions are considered at the stage of computing "Total taxable income". Even if any payments under section 80G forms part of CSR payments(keeping in mind ineligible deduction expressly provided u/s.80G), the same would already stand excluded while

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

price was taxed in the hands of the employees as a perquisite under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee duly deducted tax at source under section 192 of the Act on the value of such perquisite. 18. During the relevant previous year, the assessee debited

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 3(4), MUMBAI

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

36,910/-, In the profit and loss filed along with the said return, an\namount of₹32.42,666/- was debited by the assessee on account of\nsubscription paid to Tata Sons Lid. towards TATA brand equity and promotion\nscheme. While justifying its claim for the said payment, the following\nsubmissions were mainly made on behalf of the assessee before

DEUTSCHE INDIA PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS 'DBOI GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing adjustment. Accordingly, in view of the above, grounds no.1 and 2 raised in assessee’s appeal are dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The issue arising in Corporate Tax grounds no.(a) and (b), raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the denial of deduction claimed under section 80G of the Act on Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) expenses

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) by 29.01.2014 whereas the order is passed on 30.01.2014. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the above case, we hold that the order passed by the TPO making the TP Adjustment is barred by limitation and accordingly liable to be quashed. Hence, the TP Adjustment