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

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

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

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

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

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

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

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

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), 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. XIII. Addition on account of receipts as per the ITS details not found recorded

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). X V III. Disallowance of year-end provisions. XX. Deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on Employee Stock Option Scheme ('ESOS'). XXI. Deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. XXII. Deduction of bad debts u/s.36(1

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-(LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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 by way of interest\nis obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that\nPage | 30\nITA Nos.2037, 2119, 2038 & 2118/Mum/2024

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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\nPage 30\nITA Nos.2037, 2119, 2038 & 2118/Mum/2024

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

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

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, 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 HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(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. XIII. Addition on account of receipts as per the ITS details not found recorded

J.P MORGAN ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

1,57,46,155, was treated as the transfer pricing adjustment. The aforesaid adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was added back to the income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. Though, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP mainly with regard to selection/rejection of comparables, however, learned DRP did not find merit in the objections