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

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

section 11(2) of the Act. 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theasse 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theassessment order by holding ssment order by holding that AO rightly made the additionby relying on the judgment in case of CIT vs. Shree that AO rightly made the additionby relying

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

section 11(2) of the Act. 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theasse 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theassessment order by holding ssment order by holding that AO rightly made the additionby relying on the judgment in case of CIT vs. Shree that AO rightly made the additionby relying

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

section 11(2) of the Act. 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theasse 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theassessment order by holding ssment order by holding that AO rightly made the additionby relying on the judgment in case of CIT vs. Shree that AO rightly made the additionby relying

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

46,51,141/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has submitted inaccurate particulars of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the claim of the assessee of long term capital gain and deduction u/s 54EC of the Page 9 of 33 ITA No.2954

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

46,51,141/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has submitted inaccurate particulars of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the claim of the assessee of long term capital gain and deduction u/s 54EC of the Page 9 of 33 ITA No.2954

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

46,51,141/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has submitted inaccurate particulars of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the claim of the assessee of long term capital gain and deduction u/s 54EC of the Page 9 of 33 ITA No.2954

DCIT 27(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. GANGA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shripavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit 27(1) R No.406, 4Th Floor, Tower M/S Ganga Developers Plot No. 219, Alal Asia, No.6, 11Th Road, Chembur, Vashi Railway Stn Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaafg 8230 C Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022

46 of RFCTLARR Act), is exempted from the levy of income-tax. In light of this observation, the Board, in para 3, has proceeded to conclude that since the scope of tax-exemption provided under the RFCTLARR Act is much wider than that provided under the Income Tax Act, it has been clarified by the Board that compensation received

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

10,80,181) with it. This amount ) with it. This amount include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assessee of Rs. include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assess include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assess 1,42,22,628/-. Thus . Thus, the assessee has received amount of Rs. , the assessee has received amount

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

10,80,181) with it. This amount ) with it. This amount include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assessee of Rs. include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assess include the TDS deducted and claimed by the assess 1,42,22,628/-. Thus . Thus, the assessee has received amount of Rs. , the assessee has received amount

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

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

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

Appeal is partly allowed

46,381 being the difference between the\nexercise price and the market value of the ESOS, when the same is not an\nascertained liability, is contingent in nature, quantum cannot be worked out\nprecisely and is capital in nature and hence not allowable.\n11 \"On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

10(20), assessee, an authority constituted under a state legislation for plant development of industrial area and promotion of industry cannot claim benefit of exemption under those provisions. The nature, constitution and activities of MMRDA is almost exactly the same of the cases referred herein above. Thus, the facts and the issues discussed in the judgments delivered herein above cases

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

10(20), assessee, an authority constituted under a state legislation for plant development of industrial area and promotion of industry cannot claim benefit of exemption under those provisions. The nature, constitution and activities of MMRDA is almost exactly the same of the cases referred herein above. Thus, the facts and the issues discussed in the judgments delivered herein above cases