DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

251 of the IT Act, has taken the issue into consideration and the same has been adjudicated. Since the status of the appellant is held as trust, the governing provisions are section 11,12 & 13 and not any other section. Holding the status of the appellant as trust, it is deduced that of the total application of Rs. 1

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

251(1) (a). Even otherwise an appellate authority while hearing appeal against the order of subordinate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

251(1) (a). Even otherwise an appellate authority while hearing appeal against the order of subordinate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

251(1) (a). Even otherwise an appellate authority while hearing appeal against the order of subordinate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

251(1) (a). Even otherwise an appellate authority while hearing appeal against the order of subordinate authority has all the powers which the original authority may have in deciding the question before it subject to the restrictions or limitations, if any, prescribed by the statutory provisions. In the absence ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

c) Further, the AO has determined the capital gain by considering indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs.2,51,22,641/- for which the assessee is not eligible since the income of charitable institution is to be computed on commercial principles and sec.11(1A) itself refers to ‘net consideration’. Therefore, what is required to be reinvested is the entire

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

Trust and Reliance Foundation is eligible spending\nwithin the meaning of section 135 r.w. rule 7 of Company's Act\n2013?\"\n5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

Trust and Reliance Foundation is eligible spending\nwithin the meaning of section 135 r.w. rule 7 of Company's Act\n2013?\"\n5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

trust.” 7. Section 43B of the Act which reads as under: - Certain deductions to be only on actual payment. 43B. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of- (a) ……. 7 A.Y. 2017-18 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd (b) any sum payable by the assessee as an employer

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

251 (Gujrat HC) CIT vs TVS Electronics Ltd (2019) 419 ITR 187 (Madras HC) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs CIT (2017) 397 ITR 728 (Delhi HC) 26 ITA.NO. 943/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., Judicial precedents in the context of approvals under section 40A 7 of the Act CIT vs Shalimar Wire and Industries

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

LOKHANDWALA FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Jm) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Act. It filed its return of income for assessment year 2016-17 on 10/09/2016 at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was passed on 21/02/2018 wherein certain adjustments were made to the total income of the assessee and it was assessed at Rs.15

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

1-4-1981 reads thus (the sub-section existed upto 31-3-1988 and was deleted thereafter): "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1980 but before the 1st day of April, 1985, a further sum equal to one-half

ACC LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL. CIT ,RG. 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

1-4-1981 reads thus (the sub-section existed upto 31-3-1988 and was deleted thereafter): "(iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft) which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1980 but before the 1st day of April, 1985, a further sum equal to one-half

KRISHNA PROCESSORS & INDUSTRIES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2877/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Krishna Processors & Industries Pvt. Ltd. 312, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002 (Mh) Pan : Aadck1539Q

251 ( Bangalore-Trib) c. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT in IT(TP)A No.2355/Bang/2019 dated 15.06.2020. d. First American (India) Pvt. Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No. 1762/Bang/2019, dated 29.04.2020 e. Allegis Services (India) Pvt.Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No.1693/Bang/2019) dated 29.04.2020. In backdrop of the aforesaid submissions, the assessee objected 9. against the adjustment proposed