TATTWAJNANA VIDYAPEETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’Ble

34) and 10(1) of the Act respectively. The AO denied the said exemption under section 10 as 10(1) of the Act respectively. The AO denied the said exemption under section 10 as 10(1) of the Act respectively. The AO denied the said exemption under section 10 as claimed by the assessee and invoked the provision of section

TATTWAJNANA VIDYAPEETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’Ble

34) and 10(1) of the Act respectively. The AO denied the said exemption under section 10 as 10(1) of the Act respectively. The AO denied the said exemption under section 10 as 10(1) of the Act respectively. The AO denied the said exemption under section 10 as claimed by the assessee and invoked the provision of section

STATE BANK OF INDIA - CUFFE PARADE BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-TDS-3(2),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

34. Accordingly, without prejudice to the position adopted by the Bank that the Bank has correctly granted exemption under section 10(5) to its employees at the time of deduction of tax at source, it is submitted that in the present circumstances and facts of the case, the Bank cannot be treated as an assessee in default in terms

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-

section 10(23FB) of the Act is allowable”. Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 7. Since, the Tribunal has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in assessee’s appeal for the AY 2013-14 discussed above, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 80IB(10) of the Act holding as under: - “7.1 The appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) of Rs.5,47,28,624/-. 7.2 For the captioned year, the appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) as under: Project Date of Date of Size of plot Deduction u/s commencement Completion (Approx.) 80IB V Nagari Annex

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 80IB(10) of the Act holding as under: - “7.1 The appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) of Rs.5,47,28,624/-. 7.2 For the captioned year, the appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) as under: Project Date of Date of Size of plot Deduction u/s commencement Completion (Approx.) 80IB V Nagari Annex

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 80IB(10) of the Act holding as under: - “7.1 The appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) of Rs.5,47,28,624/-. 7.2 For the captioned year, the appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) as under: Project Date of Date of Size of plot Deduction u/s commencement Completion (Approx.) 80IB V Nagari Annex

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 80IB(10) of the Act holding as under: - “7.1 The appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) of Rs.5,47,28,624/-. 7.2 For the captioned year, the appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) as under: Project Date of Date of Size of plot Deduction u/s commencement Completion (Approx.) 80IB V Nagari Annex

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 80IB(10) of the Act holding as under: - “7.1 The appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) of Rs.5,47,28,624/-. 7.2 For the captioned year, the appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) as under: Project Date of Date of Size of plot Deduction u/s commencement Completion (Approx.) 80IB V Nagari Annex

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 80IB(10) of the Act holding as under: - “7.1 The appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) of Rs.5,47,28,624/-. 7.2 For the captioned year, the appellant had claimed deduction under s. 80IB(10) as under: Project Date of Date of Size of plot Deduction u/s commencement Completion (Approx.) 80IB V Nagari Annex

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3954/Mum/2024

34,710 TDS-1941(B) TDS Statement (Section TDS-1941) Rent Vodafone Limited India Amount paid or credited 9,20,000 TDS-1941(B) TDS Statement (Section TDS-1941) Rent Indus Towers Limited Amount paid or credited 21,13,901 EXC-002 Turnover from services reported in service tax CBIC Gross taxable amount 29,70,941 return

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We have already allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, any consequential disallowance will also come under the purview of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act and no addition can be made. Hence, this addition has become inconsequential. 34

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We have already allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, any consequential disallowance will also come under the purview of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act and no addition can be made. Hence, this addition has become inconsequential. 34

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

TDS by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We have already allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, any consequential disallowance will also come under the purview of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act and no addition can be made. Hence, this addition has become inconsequential. 34

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

ACIT(LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TCS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 14A read with rule 8D without recording any cogent reasons as to why he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Mere recording that the amounts being meager compared to the exempt income earned, cannot be construed as recording of satisfaction. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co- ordinate bench

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount