DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

15), 10(34), and 10(38)) stood credited to the profit and loss account, there was no occasion to add it back on the ground loss account, there was no occasion to add it back on the ground loss account, there was no occasion to add it back on the ground that it was not routed through the accounts. that

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

15), 10(34), and 10(38)) stood credited to the profit and loss account, there was no occasion to add it back on the ground loss account, there was no occasion to add it back on the ground loss account, there was no occasion to add it back on the ground that it was not routed through the accounts. that

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

10. The allegation of the AO and the CIT(A) that the land has been sold by the Appellant by way of an auction and allocated to the highest bidder, makes the activity of the Appellant in the nature of trade, Commerce or business is an incorrect conclusion of the Revenue Authorities. The Appellant submits that this issued is covered

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

10. The allegation of the AO and the CIT(A) that the land has been sold by the Appellant by way of an auction and allocated to the highest bidder, makes the activity of the Appellant in the nature of trade, Commerce or business is an incorrect conclusion of the Revenue Authorities. The Appellant submits that this issued is covered

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

10. The allegation of the AO and the CIT(A) that the land has been sold by the Appellant by way of an auction and allocated to the highest bidder, makes the activity of the Appellant in the nature of trade, Commerce or business is an incorrect conclusion of the Revenue Authorities. The Appellant submits that this issued is covered

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

10. The allegation of the AO and the CIT(A) that the land has been sold by the Appellant by way of an auction and allocated to the highest bidder, makes the activity of the Appellant in the nature of trade, Commerce or business is an incorrect conclusion of the Revenue Authorities. The Appellant submits that this issued is covered

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

10. The allegation of the AO and the CIT(A) that the land has been sold by the Appellant by way of an auction and allocated to the highest bidder, makes the activity of the Appellant in the nature of trade, Commerce or business is an incorrect conclusion of the Revenue Authorities. The Appellant submits that this issued is covered

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

15% of the income of such property, is dealt with. Therefore, it is a particular assessee and who is in receipt of such income as is falling under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 11 who would be claiming the exemption or benefit. That is a income derived by a person from property. It is that which

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

10 of 38 U/s.11 of the Act merely on the ground that the assessee is not a Trust or a Company incorporated U/s.25 of the Companies Act, 1956. 10.1.2 The second reason for denial of the exemption is the cancellation of registration U/S.12A of the Act by the DIT (E) vide order dated 10.01.2014. This ground does not exist

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

10 of 38 10.1.1.3 In view of the above discussion, factual matrix and binding judicial precedents, I am of the view that the assessee, MRVC, cannot be denied exemption U/s.11 of the Act merely on the ground that the assessee is not a Trust or a Company incorporated U/s.25 of the Companies Act, 1956. 10.1.2 The second reason for denial

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

10 of 37 "6.3 Be that as it may, in the background of the aforesaid features of assessee company, we now refer to the specific points raised by the Director to say that activities of the assessee are not being carried out in accordance with its objects in order to justify his invoking of section 12AA

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

10. The present case in our view is squarely covered by the judgment of Ms Court in the case of CIT vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1986) 52 CTR (SC) 75 : (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC) in which it has been held that since the Corporation was established for the purpose of providing efficient transport system, having

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

10. Whether the CIT(A) ought to have held that the Whether the CIT(A) ought to have held that the Appellant was entitled to set Appellant was entitled to set-off of deficit of the off of deficit of the earlier years against its income for the year. earlier years against its income for the year. earlier years against

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act.” 11. Learned Authorised Representative reiterating the stand taken before the Departmental Authorities submitted, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made in respect of interest expenditure as the entire investment giving rise to exempt interest income was made out of own funds and no borrowed fund was utilised. Referring

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total