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 DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

price of\nan article all elements of cost which go into manufacturing or selling it.\nThus understood, it is clear that profits and gains are derived from the\nbusiness of the assessee, namely profits arrived at after deducting\nmanufacturing cost and selling costs reimbursed to the assessee by the\nGovernment concerned.\n19. Similarly, the judgment in Pandian Chemicals

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

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

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

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

section 36(l)(viii) it has been provided that the asssesee should create a special reserve in the year in which profit is earned. b. Creation of special reserve was a mere book entry and there is no impact on the net profit carried forward for appropriation c. The Appellant has substantially complied with the procedural requirement of creating reserve

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 133(6) of the Act was made available to the assessee. He has not properly evaluated all the objections of the assessee. The DRP also upheld the finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer by simply observing that the services provided by the company are largely in the nature of software services. Notably, in case of Invensys Development Centre India

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

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

36. We have heard the rival contentions carefully in the light of the facts and material on record as well as the decisions relied upon by both the parties. At this stage, we must observe, in the earlier part of the order, we have disapproved the approach of the Transfer Pricing Officer in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis

FIRMENICH AROMATICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

viii) Reimbursement of 6,129,335 Other method Expenses (ix) Dividend paid 77,457,379 Other method Total 1,42,15,38,501 10 Purchase of raw materials 122,057,695 TNMM 11 Payment of Rent 2,820,000 Other Method 12 Payment of managerial 21,146,231 Other Method remuneration / professional fee Total 146,023,926 5 ITA 6081/Mum/2018

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

DCIT (IT)-2(1)(2), AIR BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. DBS BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

viii). To understand\nthe above dichotomy, one must understand \"how to write off\". If an assessee debits an\namount of doubtful debt to the P&L Account and credits the asset account like sundry\ndebtor's Account, it would constitute a write off of an actual debt. However, if an\nassessee debits \"provision for doubtful debt

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

36. Brief facts are, in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee claimed deduction under sections 10A / 10AA of the Act unit–wise against the profit earned by the respective STPI/SEZ units. In respect of STPI/SEZ units which suffered losses, the assessee did not claim any deduction under sections 10A/10AA of the Act. The Assessing

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

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is\nnoticed that, Section 1941(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified\nperson is responsible for paying to a resident any income hy way of interest\nis obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that\nSection 194A(1) shall not apply if the payment

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

section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB issue expenses. XI. Set-off of short-term capital loss. XII. Income from India Value Fund. 11 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB issue expenses. XI. Set-off of short-term capital loss. XII. Income from India Value Fund. 11 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 36(1)(viii). VIII. Disallowance of entrance fees and subscriptions paid to clubs. IX. Exemption u/s. 54EC in respect of capital gains arising on depreciable assets. X. Disallowance of FCCB issue expenses. XI. Set-off of short-term capital loss. XII. Income from India Value Fund. 11 HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007