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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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

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

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