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

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

10 comparables for the purpose of T.P.\nAnalysis, whereby the mean was computed at 10.47%. Ld. TPO has observed\nthat the assessee has applied some filters which are different from the filters\napplied by the Department in the previous years in the assessee's own case. The\nld. TPO further discussed certain quantitative filters applied by the assessee as\nwell

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

TDS, although appearing in Form 26AS\nand granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1).\n13. The AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs.\n1,770/-/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n14. The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs.\n26,928/- and under section 234C

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

10 comparables for the purpose of T.P.\nAnalysis, whereby the mean was computed at 10.47%. Ld. TPO has observed\nthat the assessee has applied some filters which are different from the filters\napplied by the Department in the previous years in the assessee's own case. The\nld. TPO further discussed certain quantitative filters applied by the assessee as\nwell

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

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

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

TATA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2(3), MUMBAI

10(34) of the\nAct in respect of dividend income of INR 6,88,73,913/-. This has\n21\nnot been taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer as\nwell as CIT(A). The finding returned by the Assessing Officer\nthat entire amount of interest expenditure of INR 70.26 Crores\nand balance expenses of INR 14.09 Crores have been incurred

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