“Section 10(34)”

Canadian Kay Pump Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edel Finance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed, and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

assessee invested in current and non-current assets and earned the dividend amount to Rs.76,21,48,735/- and claimed exemption under section 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. The assessee during filing of return measly sum of Rs.42,31,712/- is offered to tax under section

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

consideration, the assessee earned dividend income from shares amounting to Rs. 77,48,34,662/- and the same is claimed as exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. The assessee has applied Rs. 78,19,29,451/- which is more than 85% of its income for charitable purposes ... accordingly the exemption under section 11 cannot be claimed by the assessee. The AO further denied the exemption under section 10(34) of the Act to the assessee for the reason that the Trust is not entitled for the said exemption. The AO also held that the Mr.Ratan Rata being

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

consideration, the assessee earned dividend income from shares amounting to Rs. 77,48,34,662/- and the same is claimed as exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. The assessee has applied Rs. 78,19,29,451/- which is more than 85% of its income for charitable purposes ... accordingly the exemption under section 11 cannot be claimed by the assessee. The AO further denied the exemption under section 10(34) of the Act to the assessee for the reason that the Trust is not entitled for the said exemption. The AO also held that the Mr.Ratan Rata being

Shri Nishit Kantilal Savla, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT

Bigflex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the tax appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalbigflex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Parijat House, 1076 Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Maharashtra 400 018 Pan: Aaccs2112A ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward-8(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

return u/s. 143(1) of the Act. For better understanding of the issue under consideration, we are reproducing herein below the provisions of section 10(34), 115O and 115BBDA of the Act as under: 10(34) any income by way of dividends referred to in section 115-O: Provided that ... purposes of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) and the rules made thereunder.] 4. In view of the provisions of section 10(34) and 115-O of the Act, there is no ambiguity in position of law that changed scenario is applicable w.e.f. Financial Year