“Section 35(1)(ii)”

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1)(ii ... that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all evidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under se the conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. ction 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. Further, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1)(ii ... that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all evidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under se the conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. ction 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. Further, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is\ndismissed whereas appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly\nallowed and appeal for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

nthe same is not acceptable as assessee has not produced any\nevidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all\nthe conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act.\nFurther, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly states that\nany sum paid to a company ... 35(2AB) of the Act. In its return of\nincome, the appellant claimed a weighted deduction of Rs.\n3,50,00,000/- under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, being 1.75 times the\namount paid. The AO however disputed the claim of weighted\ndeduction on the ground that

ACIT, CIRCLE 24(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NILKAMAL CRATES & CONTAINERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ाय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE

AAKASH VALUE REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

validity of notice issued under section 148 and, on merits, the disallowance of deduction amounting to ₹1,79,37,500/- claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of donation of ₹1,02,50,000/- made to Vivekananda Yoga Anusandhana Samsthana (VYASA). 3. The brief facts ... position as an employee and authorized signatory, and had received donations in the name of the trust while issuing receipts certifying eligibility under section 35(1)(ii). It was further stated that the funds so received were diverted and allegedly repaid to donors through other means without the knowledge

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI\nBEFORE SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nAND\nSHRI OM

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI\nBEFORE SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nAND\nSHRI OM

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

SHIVI MUKESH KUMAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER