ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

38 of the Act limiting the deduction as per Section 40 of the Act . Thus, decision in R M Chidambaram Pillai in 106 ITR 292 cannot be applied under the new changed law post Finance Act,1992 whereby the partnership firm is taxed as a separate entity. c &d) Nectar Beverages Private Limited v. DCIT

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

38) respectively and can not be brought to a tax by application of section 11 and 13 of the Act. application of section 11 and 13 of the Act. 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the grounds of appeal and the order of the 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the grounds

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

38) respectively and can not be brought to a tax by application of section 11 and 13 of the Act. application of section 11 and 13 of the Act. 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the grounds of appeal and the order of the 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the grounds

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

38) respectively and can not be brought to a tax by application of section 11 and 13 of the Act. application of section 11 and 13 of the Act. 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the grounds of appeal and the order of the 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the grounds

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

TDS from salaries for financial year 2013-14 (CBDT Circular No. 8/2013 dated 10 October 2013) clarifies that where the journey is performed in a circuitous route, the exemption is limited to what is admissible by the shortest route. Likewise, where the journey is performed in a circular form touching different places, the exemption is limited to what is admissible

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

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed

SELINA N. SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Selina N. Sheth Ito, Ward – 17(3)(1), M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400020. 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aabps9851L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

10(38) of the Act. Selina N. Sheth 5. The appellant submits that both the lower authorities erred in not allowing the benefit of indexation while computing “Capital Gains” in respect of the surrendered insurance policy. 6. Both the lower authorities erred in taxing the surrender proceeds from the insurance policy under the head “Income from Other Sources’. 7. Without

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

10(38) of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961.\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT\n(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s\n14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 has to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules,\n1962 when the computation

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

10(38) of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961.\n\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT\n(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s\n14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 has to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules,\n1962 when the computation

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

10,53,225/- i.e part of the \nexpenses incurred by the Investment Department towards \nearning of the exempt income. However, the A.O rejected \nthe aforesaid claim of the assessee and worked out the \ndisallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D at Rs.13,05,70,512/-. On \nappeal, the CIT(A) relying on the orders passed by the \nTribunal and also that

DCIT - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO .LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.3151 & 3149/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3(2)(2) M/S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K Road, New India Assurance Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 87, M G Road, Fort, Mumbai -400 001

Section 115JB of the I.T Act, 1961 are not applicable in the case of the assessee. 7. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which

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

38,88,756/- -) corresponds to the interest amount which was onds to the interest amount which was credited to P & L Ac in earlier & subsequent years. credited to P & L Ac in earlier & subsequent years. credited to P & L Ac in earlier & subsequent years. Thus this TDS is clearly creditable in AY 2013 TDS is clearly creditable