MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) 1(I), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Trust (ITA No. 155/ASR/2010, A.Y: 2005-06)(Asr) , which were relied upon during the course of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), however the same were most arbitrarily and erroneously distinguished by the said appellate authority. The Ld. A.R further in support of his contention that the disallowances contemplated in Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 43B

TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

charitable purpose of the satsang was the aspect which was sought to be confined to the facts of the case. The general principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the applicability of the principle of consistency is not something which was in any manner caveated. The Ld. Counsel argued that this is apparent from the statement

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PABODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

charitable objects. 7.4 Now we come to the order of the ITAT ‘’C’’ Bench, Mumbai in the case of the assessee for the impugned assessment years (ITA No. 8490/M/2010 & 1880/M/2012). The principal grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the impugned assessment years as mentioned at para 3.1 of the order of the Tribunal are as under

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PRABHODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

charitable objects. 7.4 Now we come to the order of the ITAT ‘’C’’ Bench, Mumbai in the case of the assessee for the impugned assessment years (ITA No. 8490/M/2010 & 1880/M/2012). The principal grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the impugned assessment years as mentioned at para 3.1 of the order of the Tribunal are as under

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

charitable objects. 7.4 Now we come to the order of the ITAT ‘’C’’ Bench, Mumbai in the case of the assessee for the impugned assessment years (ITA No. 8490/M/2010 & 1880/M/2012). The principal grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the impugned assessment years as mentioned at para 3.1 of the order of the Tribunal are as under

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

charitable objects. 7.4 Now we come to the order of the ITAT ‘’C’’ Bench, Mumbai in the case of the assessee for the impugned assessment years (ITA No. 8490/M/2010 & 1880/M/2012). The principal grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the impugned assessment years as mentioned at para 3.1 of the order of the Tribunal are as under

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

43B will not apply to the same as this does not represent the sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to pension fund. We, therefore, respectfully, following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court delete the disallowance” Hence, this issue is also covered by the Tribunal decision in the case of State Bank of Suarashtra

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

43B will not apply to the same as this does not represent the sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to pension fund. We, therefore, respectfully, following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court delete the disallowance” Hence, this issue is also covered by the Tribunal decision in the case of State Bank of Suarashtra

ADDL CIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

section 32(1) of the Act on the reasoning that it was license and also represent business and commercial right on which the assessee claimed depreciation @ 25%. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee and disallowed the claim. The first appellate authority also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the expenditure

DCIT-LTU - 2, MUMBAI vs. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

43B has no application. Insofar as applicability of section 41(1)(a), there also the applicability is to be considered in the light of the liability. It is a loss, expenditure or trading liability. In this case, the scheme under which the Sales Tax liability was deferred enables the Assessee to remit the Sales Tax collected from the customers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMRUDDHI CEMENT LIMITED (SINCE AMALGAMATED INTO M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED), MUMBAI

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

43B to disallow the claim does not arise. By the plain language of this provision and given the factual and admitted position, we do not think that the Tribunal erred in the view that it has taken and, hence, even with regard to this question, we do not agree that the Tribunal's conclusion as reached in paragraph

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMRUDDHI CEMENT LIMITED (SINCE AMALGAMATED INTO M/S.ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED), MUMBAI

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

43B to disallow the claim does not arise. By the plain language of this provision and given the factual and admitted position, we do not think that the Tribunal erred in the view that it has taken and, hence, even with regard to this question, we do not agree that the Tribunal's conclusion as reached in paragraph

ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHIRAZ DEVELOERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

charitable trust entered into an agreement with the assessee for acquiring Transferable Development Right (TDR) relating to the said land on the condition that the assessee would carry out certain acts in the matter of construction of technical institution for the trust. As per the terms of agreement, the assessee was required to do the following acts:– i) To approach

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

section (1) of section 13 of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008” 14.30. In pursuance to the aforesaid rule, an order dated 09th May, 2006 was issued by concerned official of MOCA which reads as under:- “ ORDER Subject: Collection of Passenger Service Fee (PSF) at. Greenfield / Private airports - regarding Consequent to allowing private companies, Joint Venture. Companies

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BASILICA OF OUR LADY OF THE MOUNT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

charitable institution, filed its return of income for AY 2023-24, declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer, through the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), issued an intimation under Section 143(1), computing a taxable income of 13.00.00.000 under Section 11(3). This addition arose because income accumulated in AY 2017-18 was applied in AV 2023-24, which the Assessing Officer

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

charitable institutions, etc for INR 1 5,042,600/- and under section 80JJAA of the Act for employment of new employees for INR 7,667,132/-. In relation to section 80JJAA we have claimed INR 4,711,690 as deduction carry forward for AY 2016-17 (second year), INR 2,356,117 as deduction carry forward

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION) WARD-1(1), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

charitable purpose? 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), was correct in directing the AO to reconsider the corpus donation of Rs. 1,26,85,000/- as exempted income u/s 11 of the Act, ignoring the fact that activities of the assessee hit by the proviso to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD-1(1), MUMBAI vs. ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS OF INDIAF , MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

charitable purpose? 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), was correct in directing the AO to reconsider the corpus donation of Rs. 1,26,85,000/- as exempted income u/s 11 of the Act, ignoring the fact that activities of the assessee hit by the proviso to section