ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

price of ₹ 60/- per share. Dish TV India Ltd is also a company forming part of Essel group of companies and it is engaged in the business of providing DTH services. Dish TV India Ltd is a company in which public are substantially interested and its shares are listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange

SILGATE SOLUTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal." 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of international call centre. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2013-14 on 24.10.2013, declaring total income of Rs.92,36,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that there was change in the shareholding pattern of the assessee wherein the ass

price of shares amounting to Rs.82.89 lakhs as income of the assessee u/s. 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the same. 25. The Ld A.R submitted that the Income tax Act was amended by inserting a new clause in sec. 2(22) of the Act and also by inserting sec.46A, consequent to the insertion

TPG GROWTH II MAKETS PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 83,60,61,408/-. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/06/2021, the Assessing Officer proposed an addition of INR 83,60,61,408/- under Section 56(2)(viia

LUPIN INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO ZYMA LABORATORIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act do not apply on the facts of the case and placed strong reliance on other decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches.\nPer contra, the ld. D/R strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and read the operative part of the decision of the ld. CIT(A).\n8. We have carefully considered

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMAGRA WEALTHMAX PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

price paid by assessee and FMV of shares as income of assessee under section 56(2)(viia) of The Act. We find that order of Vertex Projects LLp deals with the addition made u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act. In this regard, it is submitted that section 56(2)(viia) is applicable from 01.06.2010 to 31.03.2017. 023. Provision

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

transfer at a general body meeting of the company, (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than those set apart towards depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of income-tax paid, if any, less the amount of income-tax claimed as refund

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

transfer at a general body meeting of the company, (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than those set apart towards depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of income-tax paid, if any, less the amount of income-tax claimed as refund

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on 01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the deduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on this issue is deleted. As a result, Ground

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

viia) of the Act does not have any credit balance as on 01/04/2015, we agree with the submissions of the assessee in claiming the deduction of the entire bad debt written off as an irrecoverable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned addition made by the AO on this issue is deleted. As a result, Ground

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

56. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is covered by several\ndecisions of the coordinate benches in assessee's own case, and that is a fact\nnoted by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order itself as well. There is no\ngood reason, nor has any reason been pointed to us, to take a different view

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

Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹5,82,51,214/- in view of determination of Arm's Length Price of international transaction under Section 92CA(3) of the Act by order dated 31st October, 2018, wherein on the international transaction of buy ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 back of shares of ₹65,62,50,000/- was upwardly revised

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

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former\nemployer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case

INDUSIND BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is\ndismissed

transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former\nemployer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation\nto section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat\nequity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or swear\nequity shares, as the case

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

Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic \ntransactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). \nXVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions. \nXIX. Increasing the book profit computed u/s.115JB by the amount \ndisallowed as year-end provisions. \nXX. Deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on Employee \nStock Option Scheme ('ESOS'). \nXXI. Deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts

ADIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

viia)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 1273/Mum/2016-Assessee's appeal- AY 2011-12 44. The issues contended by the assessee and the revenue in the appeal for AY 2011-12 which are identical to the issues contended in AY 2010-11 are tabulated below – Issue

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONSL TAXATION) -2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

viia)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 1273/Mum/2016-Assessee's appeal- AY 2011-12 44. The issues contended by the assessee and the revenue in the appeal for AY 2011-12 which are identical to the issues contended in AY 2010-11 are tabulated below – Issue

CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY-CIT (INT. TAXATION)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

viia)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 1273/Mum/2016-Assessee's appeal- AY 2011-12 44. The issues contended by the assessee and the revenue in the appeal for AY 2011-12 which are identical to the issues contended in AY 2010-11 are tabulated below – Issue

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. S D N COMPANY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

price of Rs.4693.65 (4786.53 – 92.88) per share aggregating to\nRs.126,72,80,806/- as the fair value of shares of UFIPL and invoking the\nprovisions of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the AO made the addition of\nRs.126,72,80,806/-.\n7. 1. At this stage, it would be pertinent to refer to the provisions of\nSection 56