ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

charitable purposes. Section 12 deals with income of trust or institutions from contributions. By section 12A conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12 are set out. Section 12AA sets out the procedure for registration. Section 13 states that section 11 will not apply in certain cases. By section 13A, special provision is made relating to incomes of political parties

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

ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

194J and 195, and since the assessee failed in deducting tax at source, the AO disallowed the provision for the expenditure. 6.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was inter-alia submitted that these expenses were provided for in the book of account

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

194J and 195, and since the assessee failed in deducting tax at source, the AO disallowed the provision for the expenditure. 6.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was inter-alia submitted that these expenses were provided for in the book of account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

194J. We take up all the three appeals together for adjudication by this consolidated order since common issue is involved. Ground no. 3 for Assessment Year 2018-19 shall be dealt separately. For the purpose of Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd. AYs 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2016-17 drawing facts, we take appeal for Assessment Year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

194J. We take up all the three appeals together for adjudication by this consolidated order since common issue is involved. Ground no. 3 for Assessment Year 2018-19 shall be dealt separately. For the purpose of Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd. AYs 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2016-17 drawing facts, we take appeal for Assessment Year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

194J. We take up all the three appeals together for adjudication by this consolidated order since common issue is involved. Ground no. 3 for Assessment Year 2018-19 shall be dealt separately. For the purpose of Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd. AYs 2018-19, 2017-18 and 2016-17 drawing facts, we take appeal for Assessment Year

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

charitable trusts. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Synthetic Ltd. has not laid down a law that double deduction is not permissible. It only stated that the same should be expressly provided for under the Act. In the present case, admittedly Section 32 of the Act provides for allowance of depreciation

DR. BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) (OSD) 1(3), MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3193 & 3194/Mum/2015, आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2007-08) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dr. Batra’S Positive Health Clinic Pvt.Ltd. Ito-(Tds)(Osd), Range-1(3) 307/308, Arcadia, 3Rd Floor, 8Th Floor, Room No.811, Smt. K.G. Mittal Vs. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Ayurvedic Hospital Building, Charni Pan:Aabcd 3857 G Road (W)Mumbai-400 002. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Smt. Pooja Swaroop अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:S/ Shri Vijay Mehta & Govind Jhaveri सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20/10/2017 लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य, राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dtd. 02/03/2015 Of The Cit (A)-59,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S).As The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Common,So,We Are Adjudicating Them Together For The Sake Of Convenience. Effective Ground Of Appeal Is Treating The Assessee In Default(A-I-D) U/S.201(1) & 201 (1A) Of The Act.

194J in respect of full time consultation. The AO examined the condition of the engagement of the doctors and concluded that the condition of daily attendance into devote his expertise (only to the Hospital) can only be dictated 3 with their employee-employer relationship and whole of the doctors are employee of the assessee-company

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS)2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

Charitable Trust vs. ITO, [2017] 83 taxmann.com 293 wherein the delay of 1631 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal was condoned. Though the Hon'ble Madras High Court condoned the delay on the ground that assessee did not have the best legal assistance available to it, a ground which is not canvassed before us, so however

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

Charitable Trust vs. ITO, [2017] 83 taxmann.com 293 wherein the delay of 1631 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal was condoned. Though the Hon'ble Madras High Court condoned the delay on the ground that assessee did not have the best legal assistance available to it, a ground which is not canvassed before us, so however

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194J and 194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(20, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194J and 194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNAIOTNAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194J and 194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194J and 194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194J and 194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

194J and 194C but failed to do so." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,31,76,051/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia), without appreciating that the assessee’s tax auditors had pointed out that the said