REKHA NILESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

24A and 25 of the paper book. The assessee had sold shares on three different dates in the price bond of Rs. 228 to 211 per share. Thus, total consideration of Rs. 32,88,063/- was received on sale of shares. Closing balance of the shares in demat account of the assessee is 25,000. A copy of statement

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

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

24A of “the Act” cannot be allowed while computing income of interest claim u/s. 11 of “the Act”. The Ld. AR and the Ld. DR has submitted the copy of the Coordinate Bench judgment in ITA No. 106/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2012-13) 'B' Bench, Mumbai dated 29.03.2019. 15. We have considered the submissions, perused the order of the lower authorities

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(1), CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI

24A of “the Act” cannot be\nallowed while computing income of interest claim u/s. 11 of “the Act”.\nThe Ld. AR and the Ld. DR has submitted the copy of the Coordinate\nBench judgment in ITA No. 106/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2012-13) 'B' Bench,\nMumbai dated 29.03.2019.\n15. We have considered the submissions, perused the order of the lower\nauthorities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

24A. The Metropolitan Authority shall not and shall not be required to carry out\nany of its operations under this Act at a loss. Any deficit in the Mumbai\nMetropolitan Region Development Fund in any financial year shall be made good\nby the Authority not later than those of the next succeeding financial year.\"\n\nThis provision amply proves that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

24A. The Metropolitan Authority shall not and shall not be required to carry out\nany of its operations under this Act at a loss. Any deficit in the Mumbai\nMetropolitan Region Development Fund in any financial year shall be made good\nby the Authority not later than those of the next succeeding financial year.\"\nThis provision amply proves that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

24A. The Metropolitan Authority shall not and shall not be required to carry out any of its operations under this Act at a loss. Any deficit in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Fund in any financial year shall be made good by the Authority not later than those of the next succeeding financial year." This provision amply proves that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

24A. The Metropolitan Authority shall not and shall not be required to carry out any of its operations under this Act at a loss. Any deficit in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Fund in any financial year shall be made good by the Authority not later than those of the next succeeding financial year." This provision amply proves that

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

GAINS” [emphasis supplied by us by bold and underline] 12.3. A view expressed by authors of an article titled “Foreign Tax Credit - Is a Carry-Forward Obligatory?” published in the Bulletin for International Taxation, October 2012 which is relevant in the present case before us, mentions that: “…object and purpose of a tax treaty, i.e. the avoidance of double taxation