DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SANTOSH VIMLESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the BSE under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations 1997 and under BSE under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations 1997 and under BSE under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. NANIKRAM MENGHRAJ TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriito V/S. Nanikram Menghraj Trust Room No.618, Mtnl बनाम 113, 114 Navjivan, Building, Cumbala Hill, Commercial Building No.3, Peddar Road, Lamington Road, Maharashtra-400026 Mumbai Central, Maharashtra-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatn2215N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 50C of the Act by adopting stamp duty value for the purpose of working out the capital gains. Assessment was P a g e | 4 ITA No. 3162/Mum/2024 & CO. No. 136/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Nanikram Menghraj Trust finalized at an income of Rs. 2,45,07,428/- on account of long-term capital gains so computed. 5. Aggrieved with

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUMBALLA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

12A, disregarding dated 19.06.1968. the CBDT Circular No 5-P(LXX- 2. "On the facts and circumstances allowing accumulation of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in same being under section 11(1)(a) on capital gains

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

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

capital gains. 9. No contrary decision was brought to our notice by the learned AR. In view of this fact, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 24(a) of the Act. Thus, the ground taken by the assess fails.\" 11. Thus, the finding of the Ld. Coordinate Bench noted above mutatis

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. DR D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

12A and has not violated section 13. Further there is no private gain and all the funds are ploughed back only into education. Thus accumulations and application are as per the provisions of section 11. Therefore, exemption under section 11 and 12 has to be allowed to the assessee. We hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.11

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. DR D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

12A and has not violated section 13. Further there is no private gain and all the funds are ploughed back only into education. Thus accumulations and application are as per the provisions of section 11. Therefore, exemption under section 11 and 12 has to be allowed to the assessee. We hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.11

KARAMSHI JETHABHAI SOMAIYA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The assessee filed the return of income for assessment year 2009- 10 on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed vide order dated 23.03.2011 wherein the assessing officer has accepted the income returned by the assessee. Subsequently, the assessing officer

UNIVERSAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (E) II(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleuniversal Education Foundation V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax (Exemption) – Ii(2) 1St Floor, Filka Building Mumbai Daftary Road, Malad (W) Mumbai - 400097 Pan: Aabcu0516D (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain is chargeable for the assessment year 2011-12. 11. Hence, since the payment as mentioned in the assignment deed was not received by M/s. Universal Education Foundation and there was no surety of the receipt of the same in future it was not reflected in Balance Sheet and not taxed during the year. 12. There in uncertainty

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-53, MUMBAI vs. SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-53, MUMBAI vs. SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-53, MUMBAI vs. SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(3) , MUMBAI vs. M/S SAMSON MARITIME LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAMSON MARITIME LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same