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

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

viii) Indian Hotel Co. Ltd. i) Tata Sons Ltd. ix) Tata Steel Ltd. ii) Central IND SPG Weaving And manufacturing Co. Ltd. x) Tata Motors Ltd. iii) Tata Mills Co. Ltd. xi) Tata Powers Ltd. xii) Tata Chemical Ltd. xiii) Associated Cement Co. Ltd. xiv) State Bank of India (c) In the details so provided, the shares were shown

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

viii) Indian Hotel Co. Ltd. i) Tata Sons Ltd. ix) Tata Steel Ltd. ii) Central IND SPG Weaving And manufacturing Co. Ltd. x) Tata Motors Ltd. iii) Tata Mills Co. Ltd. xi) Tata Powers Ltd. xii) Tata Chemical Ltd. xiii) Associated Cement Co. Ltd. xiv) State Bank of India (c) In the details so provided, the shares were shown

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

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

36,50,493/- on 30th September, 2008. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29th December, 2020 at ₹nil. 04. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act on 15th Mach, 2015 for violation of the provision of Section 13 of the Act and therefore, the action under Section

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

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

36,50,493/- on 30th September, 2008. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29th December, 2020 at ₹nil. 04. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act on 15th Mach, 2015 for violation of the provision of Section 13 of the Act and therefore, the action under Section

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

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

36,50,493/- on 30th September, 2008. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29th December, 2020 at ₹nil. 04. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act on 15th Mach, 2015 for violation of the provision of Section 13 of the Act and therefore, the action under Section

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

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

36,50,493/- on 30th September, 2008. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29th December, 2020 at ₹nil. 04. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act on 15th Mach, 2015 for violation of the provision of Section 13 of the Act and therefore, the action under Section

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable trust 4. and for the assessment year 2021-22, the assessee filed its return of income on 11.12.2021, declaring a total income of Rs.5,607/- The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 25.11.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO–CPC computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable trust 4. and for the assessment year 2021-22, the assessee filed its return of income on 11.12.2021, declaring a total income of Rs.5,607/- The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 25.11.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO–CPC computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

36 Grant Road IL & FS Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAAT16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals in ITA No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 arise out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai

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

36(1)(v) r.w.s 43B of the Act. 8 A.Y. 2017-18 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd 9. Section 40A of the Act reads as under: - Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances 40A. (1) The provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act relating to the computation

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

36,540 General Public utility. Cannot receipts. 3,98,146 be considered as education as persons watched the no systematic formal show throughout the education is involved. It is year. nature of business. Hit by first proviso to section 2(15). 11 Rent received from the 1,62,90,000 --- As assessee's activities and sun and sand hotel

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIZATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 14I, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

1 (SC), wherein the amount was not received by the Assessee but was directly paid over to the Trust, still the Supreme Court held that it was not a case of diversion of income, as no charge was created. It was also submitted that it is well established proposition that entries in the books of accounts are not determinative

MATUNGA GYMKHANA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 143(3) dated 28/12/2011. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under:- “GROUNDS OF APPEAL I. TREATING OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST AS MUTUAL CONCERN AND THEREBY DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the appellant ,a Charitable Trust as a Mutual Association and applying the principles of mutuality

DDIT (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 143(3) dated 28/12/2011. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under:- “GROUNDS OF APPEAL I. TREATING OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST AS MUTUAL CONCERN AND THEREBY DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the appellant ,a Charitable Trust as a Mutual Association and applying the principles of mutuality

DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 143(3) dated 28/12/2011. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under:- “GROUNDS OF APPEAL I. TREATING OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST AS MUTUAL CONCERN AND THEREBY DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the appellant ,a Charitable Trust as a Mutual Association and applying the principles of mutuality

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

VIII) Whether the findings of the ITAT that only 90% of the 'net' income from the 'lease hire charges' received by the assessee apart from depreciation has to be excluded for the purpose of computing profits of the business under clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC, is right in law ?" 7. Out of the above substantial questions

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

VIII) Whether the findings of the ITAT that only 90% of the 'net' income from the 'lease hire charges' received by the assessee apart from depreciation has to be excluded for the purpose of computing profits of the business under clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC, is right in law ?" 7. Out of the above substantial questions