“Section 160(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 160Section 160(1)11 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3936/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3795/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3794/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3791/MUM/2023[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

MANTIKA BENEFICIARY TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1216/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmantika Beneficiary Trust, D 122, Amba Bari, Jaipur – 302 012. Pan No.:Aaetm7086Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward- 7(1), Jaipur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 160Section 163Section 250Section 9

private trust is not falling in any of the categories mentioned (supra). But, still the assessee trust relied on clause (ii) of the Section 160(1) of the Act and clubbed the income with the income of the father of the sole beneficiary

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1221/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: \n1. \"A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 244ASection 245Section 250Section 80G

NAVAL TATA\n2. KRISHNAKUMAR KUTTAMBALLY RAYAROTH\n3. VIJAY SINGH\n4. VENU SRINIVASAN\n4. To be filled in case of persons referred to in section 160(1)(iii)\nor (iv)\n1. Whether shares of the beneficiary are determinate or known?Blank\n2. Whether the person referred in section 160(1 ... Business Income? Blank\n3. Whether the person referred in section 160(1)(iv) is declared by a Will and/or is exclusively for the benefit of any dependent relative of the settlor and/or is the only trust declared by the settlor? Blank\n4. Whether all the beneficiaries have income below basic

INVESTCORP REAL ESTATE YIELD FUND,BANDRA, MUMBAI vs. ITO-23(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4638/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/w Ms. Chandani Shah & MsFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapadiya, D/R

Section 143(1)Section 160(1)(iv)Section 234BSection 234C

registered as an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) under Securities and Exchange Control board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 and as per Section 160(1)(iv) of the Act, the assessee is a representative of the beneficiaries of the funds. Accordingly, the trustee of the fund computes the taxable ... through taxation. Since the corresponding income has been offered by the assessee in the capacity of the representative assessee within the meaning of Section 160(1)(iv) r.w.s. 164(1) of the Act, the assessee deserves to be allowed the credit of TDS and advance tax as claimed

PRASHANT SARAWGI HUF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, MUMBAI

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

ITA 942/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bles.N. Sarawagi Huf V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 21(3)(2) Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 4Th Floor, 85 Pitale Prasad Mumbai – 400 012 Worli Sea Face, Worli Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaohs0741N (Appellant) (Respondent) Prashant Sarawgi Huf V. Acit (Cpc) Shiv Smriti Chambers, 49A Post Bag No. 2 Dr. Annie Besant Road Electronic City Post Office Mumbai - 400018 Bangalore - 560100 Karnataka Pan: Aaehp9323D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

S.N. SARAWGI HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 941/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the revenue’s corresponding grounds stand dismissed

ITA 1322/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143Section 160(1)Section 40Section 9Section 9(2)

addition for payment of salary in foreign branch office of Rs.1,02,32,000/-. 3 The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 160(1) r.w.s 163(1), the assessee company has to be considered as a representative assessee since the company is making payment to non-resident

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Late Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR

Section 160Section 160(1)(i)Section 161(1)Section 163Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54F

facts in treating the assessee as representative assessee of Shri Ashok Tyagi u/s 160 of the Income Tax Act. Infact, the provisions of section 160(1)(i) are not applicable and therefore, assessment was to be framed by the Assessing Officer directly in the name of non-resident Mr Ashok ... facts in treating the assessee as representative assessee of Shri Ashok Tyagi u/s 160 of the Income Tax Act. Infact, the provisions of section 160(1 )(i) are not applicable and therefore, assessment was to be framed by the Assessing Officer directly in the name of non-resident Mr Ashok