OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

section 11 is applicable in the case of entities which claims deductions u/s 23C of the Act. 9 Oberoi Foundation 12. It is brought to our notice that the assessee has specifically submitted the details of payment of rent before Assessing Officer and even Assessing Officer has verified the same while verifying the compliance of TDS

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

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Lalit Kumar, Jm

section 11(4A), because the 4 ITA No.3808/Mum/2015. Institute of Chemical Technology. business if any being carried out by the appellant is incidental / ancillary to the objects of the appellant trust. So far as maintenance of separate books of account is concerned, the appellant has maintained separate ledger of consultancy fee receipts. Since there is no question of expenses, assets

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

TDS) [2023] 153 taxmann.com 496/294 Taxmann 766/457 ITR 18 (Bom.) wherein this Court has held that the guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the Act cannot be relied upon by the Revenue to reject an application for compounding filed by an assessee. The Court held that guidelines are subordinate to the principal Act or Rules, it cannot restrict

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Appeal stands disposed off as partly allowed for statistical purposes

TDS reconciliation submitted by the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The aforesaid activities of the Appellant did not qualify as educational activities and income therefrom was, thus, taxable as per Section 11

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 11(1) (a) of the Act. 5.0 Reg. Ground of Appeal No.5: Short credit of TDS to the extent

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

11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 525, wherein

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

11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 525, wherein

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

11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 525, wherein

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

11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 525, wherein

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

11 of the I. T. Act on the basis that the Corporation had been formed for the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on any activity for profit. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 525, wherein

GROWMORE EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 31, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee ‘s appeal for the assessment year 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi

TDS and hence on the said amount of tax no interest can be computed u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The appellant craves leave of your Honour to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 11. Ground No.1- 11.1 At the outset, the ld. AR for the assessee mentioned

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS statements before the due date of filing of return of income by the deductees for the assessment year 2016–17. 9. Insofar as assessee’s contention regarding applicability of section 194IA of the Act is concerned, we are unable to accept the same due 11

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

TDS returns. In the absence of enabling provisions, levy of fees could not be effected in the course of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act prior to 01.06.2015. 25. The Amritsar Bench of Tribunal in Sibia Healthcare (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2015) 121 DTR 81 (Asr) (Trib) had held that the adjustment in respect of levy of fees

FORESIGHT HOLDINGS, MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Foresight Holdings Dcit (Tds) Cpc #11, 2Nd Floor, Ismail Mansion Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 94/96/98 Bazargate, Fort Sector 3, Vyshali Mumbai 400001 Ghaziabad 201010 Pan – Aacff9466H Appellant Respondent

11 thereof, have held in favour of the assessee holding as under: - “4. Now coming to the facts of these cases, in the course of the processing of the TDS returns, the Assessing Officer (TDS) [hereinafter referred to as the AO(TDS)] raised demand in each of the above cases by way of an intimation issued under section

SNEHASADAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

Section 11 of the Act, as discussed above, has led to denial of deductions of the following amounts resulting into huge demand of Rs.46,02,570/- after adjusting the TDS