SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciable asset under Section 54E cannot be denied by referring to the fiction created under Section 50. Section 54E specifically provides that where capital gain arising on transfer of a long term capital asset is invested or deposited (whole or any part of the net consideration) in the specified assets, the assessee shall not be charged to capital gains. Therefore

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 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

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

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

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. KHANNA HOTEL P.LTD, MUMBAI

depreciation, the held that contention of the assessee with regard to section 71 permitting setting off of business loss against STCG and LTCG was incorrect, that provisions of section 71 (3)did not allow set off of capital loss against business income,that the intention of the legislature was that assessee should not get benefit of paying taxes at lower

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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