ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

prices that\nare higher than what was agreed with the purchasers. Out of the\nreceipts from the new buyers, the appellant refunded to the purchasers\nthe amount paid by them and a portion of the excess amount received.\n10\nITA Nos.261 & 1022/Mum/2025\nSamir Narain Bhojwani\nThe amount thus refunded to the purchasers represents the\nconsideration the purchasers paid towards

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

section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n54 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \nfor allocation of notional expenditure. The deductions contemplated are \nthe

HUNTSMAN INVESTMENTS (NETHERLANDS),MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

price during the year under consideration.\nThe share transfer has already completed during the A.Y. 2021-22 only and as per\nprovision of sub-section 1 of section 45 of the Act, the transfer has been\ncompleted in A.Y. 2021-22 only.\nFurther, the assessee has received the deferred consideration on 18th May, 2021\nwhich is much before the filing

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

54E does not make any distinction between depreciable asset and non-\ndepreciable asset. A perusal of the provisions of section 50C, which has\nbeen reproduced hereinabove, also shows that there is no such\ndistinction made between a depreciable asset and a non-depreciable\nasset and it, therefore, cannot be said that the said provision is not\napplicable in a case

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

54E does not make any distinction between depreciable asset and non-\ndepreciable asset. A perusal of the provisions of section 50C, which has\nbeen reproduced hereinabove, also shows that there is no such\ndistinction made between a depreciable asset and a non-depreciable\nasset and it, therefore, cannot be said that the said provision is not\nPage 14\nITA

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to other provisions, since fiction created by the \nlegislature has to be confined to the purpose to which it is created. Also, \nthat section 54E does not make any distinction between depreciable \nassets

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

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n\n52 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

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

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n\n53 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

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

section 54EC in respect of capital gains \narising on depreciable assets. \n\n17. This issue arises in the following appeals: \n\n Assessment year \nGround No. in \nAssessee's appeal \n\nGround No. in \nRevenue's appeal \n\n2006-07 \n-\n\n2 \n\n17. 1. Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC \nin respect of short

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

section 54EC in respect of capital gains \narising on depreciable assets. \n\n17. This issue arises in the following appeals: \n\n Assessment year \nGround No. in \nAssessee's appeal \n\nGround No. in \nRevenue's appeal \n2006-07 \n- \n2 \n\n17. 1. Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC \nin respect of short-term capital

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld.\nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on\npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income.\nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope\n\n\n52\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs

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

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n\n53 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

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

Section 57(iii) and find that ld.\nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on\npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income.\nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope\n53\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors.\nAYs

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

Accordingly, ground so raised for Assessment \nYear 2004-05 is dismissed as infructuous

price) has been amortised over the \nvesting period. The pro-rata discount as relatable to Assessment Year \n2002-03 is Rs.2,59,47,193. Though, the said amount stood disallowed \nin the computation of total income, it was claimed as a deduction by \n\n50 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\nway

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained

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

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\n| Sr

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n\nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n53 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n\n53 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs