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 ()

Depreciation 30,458 Employees' remuneration & welfare benefits Employees' remuneration & welfare benefits 5,71,67,541 5,71,67,541 Legal & professional charges Legal & professional charges 1,33,37,144 1,33,37,144 Printing & Stationery Printing & Stationery 60,740 Rents, Rates & Taxes Rents, Rates & Taxes 3,52,594 3,52,594 Repairs & Maintenance Repairs & Maintenance

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 ()

Depreciation 30,458 Employees' remuneration & welfare benefits Employees' remuneration & welfare benefits 5,71,67,541 5,71,67,541 Legal & professional charges Legal & professional charges 1,33,37,144 1,33,37,144 Printing & Stationery Printing & Stationery 60,740 Rents, Rates & Taxes Rents, Rates & Taxes 3,52,594 3,52,594 Repairs & Maintenance Repairs & Maintenance

ITO - 4(2)(2), 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

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

.DCIT., 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37,66,592/- by way of interest expenses for earning of income uls 10(23G) of the Act, which has been offered for disallowance. We also agree that only those expenses which are relatable to earning of exempt income can be claimed as deduction for computing net income uls 10(23G) of the Act. In term of the above

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

depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition to fixed assets in the computation of income which amounted to double deduction. (v)The appellant prays that the order of the A.O. should be restored and order of the CIT(A) should be set aside." 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid grounds raised by the revenue in the Group Trust case

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

depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition to fixed assets in the computation of income which amounted to double deduction. (v)The appellant prays that the order of the A.O. should be restored and order of the CIT(A) should be set aside." 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid grounds raised by the revenue in the Group Trust case

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

depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition to fixed assets in the computation of income which amounted to double deduction. (v)The appellant prays that the order of the A.O. should be restored and order of the CIT(A) should be set aside." 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid grounds raised by the revenue in the Group Trust case

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

Depreciation\nwas also disallowed based on the previous year's assessment orders.\n20. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee company\nwas asked to furnish the stock statement submitted to the bank on\n31/12/2001. On examination of the details, it was found that the\nstock as given to the Bank was ₹14.04 crore and stock as per\nbalance sheet

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

10. On merits also, we find that view of ld. AO is correct in law. Claiming a deduction from computation of business income as provided from sections 28 to 44DB is different from claiming a deduction under chapter VIA of the Act which is allowed from 16 ICICI Securities Limited Total Income. As per Explanation 2 to Section 37

DCIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SHIRISH M DALVI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

depreciation as para 7 of the assessment order. 25.4 The ground No.1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee relate to denying of deduction under section 80IB of the Act in respect of building namely “Aum Residency”. The Ld. Assessing Officer in the year under consideration has referred to the finding of his predecessor in assessment year

SHIRISH M DALVI,KALYAN vs. DCIT CIR 29(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

depreciation as para 7 of the assessment order. 25.4 The ground No.1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee relate to denying of deduction under section 80IB of the Act in respect of building namely “Aum Residency”. The Ld. Assessing Officer in the year under consideration has referred to the finding of his predecessor in assessment year

M/S. ICICI BANK LTD ( ERSTWHILE ICICI LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

37,57,096/- made by the Assessee in terms of Section 14A of the Act. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. [2] raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. [3] 16. Ground No. [3] pertains to exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 10(33) of the Act and read as under: “On the facts