MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

Trust v. CIT (supra), etc. as submitted in detail in para 6 above. Therefore, the Appellant submits that the decision of the High Court will have a precedence over the decision of the Tribunal. e. CIT v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (83 taxmann.com 366) (Guj HC) (Pg. 165 of LPB) Para 15. It cannot be said that the activities carried

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

Trust v. CIT (supra), etc. as submitted in detail in para 6 above. Therefore, the Appellant submits that the decision of the High Court will have a precedence over the decision of the Tribunal. e. CIT v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (83 taxmann.com 366) (Guj HC) (Pg. 165 of LPB) Para 15. It cannot be said that the activities carried

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

Trust v. CIT (supra), etc. as submitted in detail in para 6 above. Therefore, the Appellant submits that the decision of the High Court will have a precedence over the decision of the Tribunal. e. CIT v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (83 taxmann.com 366) (Guj HC) (Pg. 165 of LPB) Para 15. It cannot be said that the activities carried

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

Trust v. CIT (supra), etc. as submitted in detail in para 6 above. Therefore, the Appellant submits that the decision of the High Court will have a precedence over the decision of the Tribunal. e. CIT v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (83 taxmann.com 366) (Guj HC) (Pg. 165 of LPB) Para 15. It cannot be said that the activities carried

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

Trust v. CIT (supra), etc. as submitted in detail in para 6 above. Therefore, the Appellant submits that the decision of the High Court will have a precedence over the decision of the Tribunal. e. CIT v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (83 taxmann.com 366) (Guj HC) (Pg. 165 of LPB) Para 15. It cannot be said that the activities carried

ACIT(E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. PADMSHREE DR D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 11 of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for 2 ITA No.2035/Mum/2015, A.Y 2010-11 M/s Padamshree Dr.D.Y.Patil University the objects of the trust as application and does not specifically & expressly provide for double deduction on account of depreciation on the same very assets acquired from such capital expenditure, no deduction shall

THE MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

charitable organization with DDIT (Exemption), Mumbai under section 12A of the Act vide registration No TR32095 dated 16.08.1986. This trust is also registered with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai vide registration No C-16116. The assessee trust is formed with object to propagate music and promotion of musical talent. The objected of Trust has been defined in the trust deed

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri

366 ITR 85, wherein it was held that on fair reading of section 2 (15) of the act, the newly inserted proviso to section 2 (15) of the act will not apply in respect of relief to the poor, education or medical relief. Thus where the purpose of trust institution is relief to the poor, education or medical relief

ALL INDIA LIQUID BULK IMPOERTERS & EXPORTERS ASSSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ADIT(E)-II(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleall India Liquid Bulk Vs. Adit(E)-Ii(2) Importers & Exporters Piramal Chambers, Association Lalbaug, Parel, 501- Mulratna, Mumbai – 400012. 334- Katha Bazar, Masjid, Mumbai – 400009. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca5018F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal: I. Confirmation Of Treatment Of The Non-Profit Organisation As A Mutual Concern & Denying Exemption U/S 11: 1. The Learned C1.T(A) Erred In Confirming Treatment Of The All Inida Liquid Bulk Importers & Exporters Association, Mumbai. Appellant As A Mutual Association Created Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Basic Conditions Of The Concept Of Mutuality Are Not Satisfied, Hence The Same Is Not Applicable To The Appellant.

366/- which requires to be allowed against the collection of Rs. 6,60,000/- from non members III.CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF BANK FIXED DEPOSIT INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 11,375/- AS TAXABLE INCOME: 1, The Learned CIT(A) erred in treating the Interest Income on Bank Fixed Deposit of Rs. 11,375/- as taxable income on mutuality concept basis

ITO (E) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SATHYA SAI TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

section 11 of the Income Tax Act regarding that the income should have been applied for charitable purposes only in the year in which the income has arisen and there is no question of double deduction in the instant case since it is a case of carry forward of deficit and unabsorbed depreciation to be set off against the income

DALAL AND BROACHA STOCK BROKING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Dalal & Broacha Stock Broking Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, 506, Maker Chambers V, 221, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. [Pan No. Aaacd5662J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

366),  American Express (India) P. Ltd. vs. PCIT (166 taxmann.com 91),  DCIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (173 taxmann.com 219). 5. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income Tax/Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr. CIT. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that there is no reference in the assessment order except

ASSTT CIT (E) -I(1), MUMBAI vs. K.J.SOMAIYA TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2008-09

366 ITR 51 (Cal.) and CIT vs Devi Shankuntla Tharal Charitable foundation 358 ITR 452 (MP). 3.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Section 11(6) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014. In this section, where any income is required to be applied or accumulative or set apart for application, then

INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

366 (Mumbai-Trib.) 5. On the other hand, ld. DR has strongly argued in favour of the order of ld. AO as well as placed reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Agilent Technologies (International) (P.) Ltd. V. ACIT/NFAC, Delhi [2024]160 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein the same issue stands decided in favour

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

366 ITR 505) wherein it has been\nheld that where the aggregate of own funds and current account deposits\nis more than the investments in tax-free securities, no disallowance is\ncalled for. In the absence of recording objective satisfaction having\nregard to Bank's books of account and its various\ncontentions/submissions/workings by the AO qua its claim in respect

HEMANI INDUSTIRES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-6, 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.2963/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Hemani Industries Limited C-701-703, 7Th Floor, Neelkanth Business Park, R.N Road, Vidyavihar (West) Mumbai-400 086 Pan : Aaach1117Q

366 (Mum-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has observed as follows: “5. We heard the parties and perused the material on records. The assessee during the year disallowed a sum of Rs.33,85,00,000 under section 37 of the Act towards the CSR Spend in compliance with section 135 of the Act. Since the institutions to which the said amounts

MAHANSARIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, MUMBAI-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

366 (Mumbai - Trib.)] xii. American Express (India) P. Ltd. vs. PCIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 91 (Delhi-Trib.) 12 xiii. Interglobe Technology Quotient (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 542 (Delhi-Trib.) 13. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the findings of the Ld.PCIT. The ld PCIT has referred to the explanation 2 to Section

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

366 (Mum- Trib), wherein the Tribunal has observed as follows: “5. We heard the parties and perused the material on records. The assessee during the year disallowed a sum of Rs.33,85,00,000 under section 37 of the Act towards the CSR Spend in compliance with section 135 of the Act. Since the institutions to which the said amounts

PRUDENT INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Charitable Trust, and ₹5,00,000/– to Udbhav School. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer, upon examination of the documents placed on record, accepted and allowed the claim of deduction under section 80G. 4. The learned PCIT, however, in exercise of his revisionary powers, observed that the expenditure for which deduction was claimed