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 ()

34) and 10(38) of the Act respectively respectively, is legally allowable in the hands of the , is legally allowable in the hands of the assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 of the Act. Put differently, the question

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 ()

34) and 10(38) of the Act respectively respectively, is legally allowable in the hands of the , is legally allowable in the hands of the assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 of the Act. Put differently, the question

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 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 9 Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

section 10(34)\ndoes not deal with income derived from property held under trust.\n(iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld\nCIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

section 10(34)\ndoes not deal with income derived from property held under trust.\n\n(iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld\nCIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

section 10(34)\ndoes not deal with income derived from property held under trust.\n(iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld\nCIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

section 10(34)\ndoes not deal with income derived from property held under trust.\n(iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld\nCIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

section 10(34)\ndoes not deal with income derived from property held under trust.\n(iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld\nCIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. A.Y. 2012-13 Tata Social Welfare Trust & Tata Education Trust (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. A.Y. 2012-13 Tata Social Welfare Trust & Tata Education Trust (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO(E)-2(4) (NOW ASSESSED BY THE ACIT-17(3) ), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. A.Y. 2012-13 Tata Social Welfare Trust & Tata Education Trust (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-2(4) (NO ASSESSED BY THE ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. A.Y. 2012-13 Tata Social Welfare Trust & Tata Education Trust (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

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

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

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet

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

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

Depreciation was also disallowed based on the previous year’s assessment orders. 20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on 31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the stock as given to the Bank was ₹ 14.04 crore and stock as per balance sheet