ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price, made a reference to the DVO under Section 142A. The DVO estimated the market value of the property at an amount which was much higher than the amount shown in the document. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the two figures as undisclosed investment. It was in this background that this Court held that the report

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

55A of the Act for making investigation under section 131(1)(d). Since the Assessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs. 1,43,094 based on the DVO’s report, which, in view of the above decision could not be relied upon, we hold that there is no material on record to sustain the addition made

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

55A of the Act for making investigation under section 131(1)(d). Since the Assessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs. 1,43,094 based on the DVO’s report, which, in view of the above decision could not be relied upon, we hold that there is no material on record to sustain the addition made

INDUSIND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD ( NOW SUCCEEDED ON AMALGAMATION BY HINDUJA GROUP LTD ),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

price of Rs.3.76 Cr. i.e. Rs.11,760/- per sq. ft.\n\n4.2 The ld.CIT(A) further noted that section 50C is a deeming\nprovision of the Act which has been introduced by Finance Act of 2002\nand its introduction was explained as under:\n\n37. Computation of capital gains in real estate transactions-37.1 The\nFinance

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

55A of the Act for making investigation under section 131(1)(d). Since the\nAssessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs.1,43,094 based on the DVO's\nreport, which, in view of the above decision could not be relied upon, we hold that there\nis no material on record to sustain the addition made by the Assessing

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

TECKMEN SYSTEMS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the above terms

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 50C of the I. T. Act, 1961, even though the property transferred by the appellant was a leasehold property and Sec. 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961, has no application in case of transfer of leasehold property. 4. Learned lower authorities have grossly erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court / Hon'ble Income

VIPUL MAHASUKHLAL GOPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvipul Mahasukhlal Gopani, A-3003, One Avighna Park, Mahadev Palav Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaapg8761A ....... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

transfer of any land referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of this section.] [Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that income derived from any building or land referred to in sub-clause (c) arising from the use of such building or land for any purpose (including

DEEPENDRA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1) MUMBAI, BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledeependra Singh, Vs. Ito Ward-17(2)(1), 504 Pushpa Kunj, Kautaliya Bhavan, A Road,Marine Lines, Bandra East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400050. Pan/Gir No. : Akips3319N Appellant .. Respondent

price. Deependra Singh, Mumbai. 2) The Ld. AO fell in error of law in placing heavy relianceon the SVA valuation, and failed to appreciate that the SVA valuation adopts a uniform rate, is highly generalized and does not take into consideration peculiar features of a particular property. 3) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

price situation in the territory or similar and/or competitive products. (vi) that article 11.1.1.3 assures the minimum margin to be earned by NPIL at 40%. (vii) that as per article 11.1.2.4 commission to be earned by the assessee on various bulk products of biochemical was agreed upon as under: (viii) that as per article 9.1 of the ADMA agreement (supra

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

price situation in the territory or similar and/or competitive products. (vi) that article 11.1.1.3 assures the minimum margin to be earned by NPIL at 40%. (vii) that as per article 11.1.2.4 commission to be earned by the assessee on various bulk products of biochemical was agreed upon as under: (viii) that as per article 9.1 of the ADMA agreement (supra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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