ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?” 21. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?” 21. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

condoned d. Ld. counsel alternatively submitted that Ld. . Ld. counsel alternatively submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and therefore appeal and therefore appeal should be sent back to him should be sent back to him. He alternatively also submitted that . He alternatively also submitted that

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

condoned d. Ld. counsel alternatively submitted that Ld. . Ld. counsel alternatively submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit and therefore appeal and therefore appeal should be sent back to him should be sent back to him. He alternatively also submitted that . He alternatively also submitted that

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat\nDiamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar\ncircumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act.\nwas upheld?\"\n21.\nThere is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEPTION) -CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat\nDiamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar\ncircumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act.\nwas upheld?\"\n21. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat\nDiamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar\ncircumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act.\nwas upheld?\"\n\n21.\nThere is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat\nDiamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar\ncircumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act.\nwas upheld?\"\n21.\nThere is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

Section 13(1)(d) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR\n280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of\nexemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?\"\n21.\nThere is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

d forward or set-off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the ppeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the ppeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause

BALMOHAN VIDYAMANDIR TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) I(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust, Ito (Exemption)-1 (1), 42, 59-65, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai 400028 Pan: Aaatb0099C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust, Ito (Exemption)-1 (1), 42, 59-65, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai 400028 Pan: Aaatb0099C (Appellant) (Respondent)

D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. These two appeals are filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 10.04.2013 and 31.07.2014 for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. We have noticed that appeal no. 5127/Mum/2013 time barred

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two appeals preferred by the Assessee against two separate orders pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020 passed by ITA No.3015 & 3075/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2019-2020 the first appellate authority. Since identical grounds were raised in all the three appeals, the same were heard together, and are, therefore, being disposed

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

D S Babrekar Marg known as Avinash Building for a total consideration of Rs. 16.50 crores for which it entered into an agreement for purchase on 13.06.2014 and final deed of conveyance was executed on 30.10.2014. It was submitted that the assessee set aside a sum of Rs. 6.50 crores for said acquisition for which negotiations were earlier going

UMMEED FOUNDATION,AL SHAKREEN APT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PMT BUILDING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Ummeed Foundation, Cit(E), Pune, Room No. 204, A1 Shakreen Apt, 322, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Vs. Waf Acomplex Chs, H-104, Office, Pmt Building Sharifa Road, Amrut Nagar, City Commercial Complex, Shankar Convent High School, Thane, Sheth Road, Swargate, Kausa B.O., Maharashtra-400612. Pune-411037. Pan No. Aaatu 4914 H Appellant Respondent

d the date of filing of Form No. 10A in case of an application under clause i) of the first No. 10A in case of an application under clause i) of the first No. 10A in case of an application under clause i) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub proviso to clause

M/S. LAVINO KAPUR COTTONS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2102 & 2103/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Dcit Cir-3(2)(1), M/S Lavino Kapur Cottons Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Maharshi Karve Road, 121/122, Mittal Chambers, Vs. Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacl0824C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Surinder Mehra, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 10.09.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2

D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate impugned order of even date 10.09.2021, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in relation to adjustment made u/s 143(1) for the AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. 2 I.T.A. No. 2102 & 2103/Mum/2021 M/S Lavino Kapur Cottons

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18/12/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, directing the Assessing Officer to grant interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) from 1st April itself, whereas, the amount of refund became due for the first time because

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUM vs. ACIT-TDS-2(2), MUM

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3111& 3112/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 State Bank Of India Hrms Acit (Tds) Rg-2(2), Department, Peddar Road, Vs. 4Th Floor, Cidco Tower No. 7, Mumbai-400014. Belapur Railway Station Complex-400614. Tan No. Mums 63193 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Desai & Mr. Sachin Lopes, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr

section assessee to file the said certificate under first prov assessee to file the said certificate under first prov 201(1) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) 201(1) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A), which will be considered by which will be considered by the Ld CIT(A) in accordance with law. in accordance with