UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

2)(viia) of the Act\nis not applicable to shares held as stock in trade for trading\npurpose and not as investment and added Rs.14,70,85,848/-.\nLooking to the facts and circumstances of the case, your\nappellant requests your Honour that the Assessing Officer may\nbe directed to delete the said addition in toto\".\n16. During the course

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

11 of the Acquisition Act which\ndeals a corresponding new bank treated as Indian company for\nthe purpose of Income Tax, however, Clause (b) in Sub-Section 2\nto Section 115JB does not permit treatment of such bank as a\ncompany for the purpose of the said clause, because it should be\ncompany to which second proviso to sub-section

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

11 of the Acquisition Act which\ndeals a corresponding new bank treated as Indian company for\nthe purpose of Income Tax, however, Clause (b) in Sub-Section 2\nto Section 115JB does not permit treatment of such bank as a\ncompany for the purpose of the said clause, because it should be\ncompany to which second proviso to sub-section

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

Section 2 of the Act reads as under “Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or an activity of rendering any service in relation to a trade commerce or business

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

Section 2 of the Act reads as under “Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or an activity of rendering any service in relation to a trade commerce or business

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

Section 2 of the Act reads as under “Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or an activity of rendering any service in relation to a trade commerce or business

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

Section 2 of the Act reads as under “Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or an activity of rendering any service in relation to a trade commerce or business

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

Section 2 of the Act reads as under “Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or an activity of rendering any service in relation to a trade commerce or business

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

section 11(2) should also be allowed as per tax Taxable Income as per Page | 7 ITA No. 113/Mum/2024 and ITA No. 650/Mum/2024 Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust; A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessment Order and not the amount shown in Form No. 10 filed. It is further contended that the Ld. AO erred in not allowing deduction

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee for all the years\nunder consideration stands allowed

2-3 of CIT appeal order 2011-12\nS.No.\nName of Unit\nPlace\nActivity\n1.\nSt. Joseph's Convent\nBandra\nPreprimary, high school,\nboarding school\n2.\nSt. Joseph's Convent\nPrimary Section\nBandra\nPrimary School\n3.\nPriti Sagar Collem/\nTilamol\nGOA\nPrimary,\nFormal\nEducation\n4.\nSacred Heart Convent\nHubli\nPre Primary, Primary,\nHigh School\n5.\nHoly Family Convent\nIgatpuri

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

TDS compliance. The real issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is whether the provisions of section 11 is applicable and in the subsequent proceedings, the Assessing Officer has verified the allowability of the rent and he has not properly verified the same. In our view, the venturing in the subsequent proceedings are beyond the scope of the grounds

THE INDIAN MERCHANTS CHAMBERS,,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4076/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) The Indian Merchants Chambers, Vs. Ddit(Exemption)-Ii(1), Imc Building, Imc Marg, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400020 Parel, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati 00047 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.S.Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/ 06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Basically Aggrieved For Decline Of Exemption U/S.11 On The Plea That Proviso To Section 2(15) Was Applicable To The Assessee Which Was Introduced W.E.F. Assessment Year 2009-2010. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Registered As A Company U/S.25 Of The Companies Act, 1956. The Main Objects Of The Assessee Trust Inter Alia Are To Promote, Advance & Protect Trade, Commerce & Industry In India. The Ao Held That The Assessee Was Not Imparting Education In Pursuance Of Its Objects. He Held That The Activity Of Organizing Seminars, The Definition Of Education. The Assessee Was Running Certain Seminars

TDS disallowance of Rs.2,50,874/-“. 32. We have already discussed the facts above in ITA No1491/Kol/2012 for AY 2008-09, which are unchanged in this appeal also i.e. for AY 2009-10 but in view of amendment in Section 2(15) of the Act vide Finance Act 2008, w.e.f. 01/04/2009, whereby new proviso was inserted and according to lower

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

11 (2) (c) is to determine if and if so, the extent of which the liability on account of penalty or interest should be paid out of any surplus funds in the hands of the Custodian. The determination of the liability to pay penalty or interest under the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not fall within the domain

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS on reinsurance premium paid to non residents and hence action of the AO to disallow the same under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is accordingly upheld. Ground 2 and 3 of the appellant is hereby dismissed.‖ 3.16. We find that the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid case had held that definition in Section 2

BALJEEVAN TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEM. WARD 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1872/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bal Jeevan Trust बिधम/ Ito (E), Ward-1(1) A/14, Sterling Apartments, Piramal Chamber, Lal Vs. Peddar Road, Mumbai- Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400026. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2973M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Accumulation Of Rs.30 Lakhs As Per Section 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Read With Rule 17 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter “The Rules”).

section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of the income, the same has to be allowed. It is also noted that from chart (supra) (statement of income, expenses and accumulation) it shows that the assessee in AY. 2022-23 & AY. 2023-24 has offered excess amount which had been applied for achieving the objects of the trust

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

11)(b) of the Act and shall be entitled for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee company has prior to demutualization or corporatization of BSE, had in-fact claimed depreciation on the membership of BSE in the return of income filed with the Revenue which was allowed by the Revenue. The Section

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

11)(b) of the Act and shall be entitled for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee company has prior to demutualization or corporatization of BSE, had in-fact claimed depreciation on the membership of BSE in the return of income filed with the Revenue which was allowed by the Revenue. The Section

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

11)(b) of the Act and shall be entitled for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The assessee company has prior to demutualization or corporatization of BSE, had in-fact claimed depreciation on the membership of BSE in the return of income filed with the Revenue which was allowed by the Revenue. The Section