INDIAN EXTRUSIONS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Indian Extrusions Acit-24(3) B-316/317, Virwani Industrial Vs. Mumbai. Estate,Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400 063 (Assessee) (Revenue)

37% Smt. Manju R. Singh 25% Smt. Shail V. Singh 25% Ms. Pratikssa Singh 12% 7.4 Still further in the process of the re-adjustiiient of inter-se rights and claims M/s Amarnath H. Singh (HUF) retired from the partnership after end of business hours as on 30 January 2010 vide retirement deed dated 17th February 2010 and the Profit

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. SAF YEAST CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

SAF YEAST COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

depreciation at special rates for assets claimed by assessee as allowed under ITA Nos. 1634-1637&1777-1780/Mum/2016 Saf Yeast Company Private Limited (A.Y. 05-06 to 08-09) section 32(1)(i) for undertaking engaged in generation and distribution of power. The CIT(A) replied each of the objection of the AO as under: - (a) There

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

4,90,18,859/- was therefore rejected. 5. Before us, the ld.AR has claimed that the provisions of section CSR expenses being in the nature of donation could not be allowed as the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act do not apply. He placed reliance on plethora of judicial decisions of various coordinate benches

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

4 of the appeal of Revenue concern the\ndisallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the deduction\nclaimed by the assessee under Section 80G amounting to Rs.\n11,15,00,000/-, which the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted.\n7.1 The brief facts relevant to this issue are that the assessee\ndebited a sum of Rs.22

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

4 of the appeal of Revenue concern the\ndisallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the deduction\nclaimed by the assessee under section 80G amounting to Rs.\n11,15,00,000/-, which the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted.\n7.1 The brief facts relevant to this issue are that the assessee\ndebited a sum of Rs.22

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

37. In Cross Objection, the assessee has taken a ground against denial of deduction u/s.801A(4) in respect of NHPC project. The AO declined the deduction in respect of profit from NHPC on the plea that NHPC is a Government of India Enterprise but that does not make it a Government of India or State. 38. Ld. AR placed reliance

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

4) of the Act,\nresulting in an incorrect reduction of carried forward interest losses.\n5. Ground No. 5: Disallowance of interest on CCDs under section 36\nread with section 37 of the Act\nBased on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/ TPO have\nerred, in law and on facts, in disallowing interest on CCDs under section

NAVAJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust, and, for this reason, what is held in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) would not be applicable in the present context. 30. It is then contended that while the assessee has an option to claim or not to claim the benefit of Section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the same was in violation of section 101A(7) r.w.s. 2(9) of the Insurance Act?\nc)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred by upholding that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust, and, for this reason, what is held in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) would not be applicable in the present context. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 18 of 36 30. It is then contended that while the assessee has an option to claim

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust, and, for this reason, what is held in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) would not be applicable in the present context. 30. It is then contended that while the assessee has an option to claim or not to claim the benefit of Section

JAMSETJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

depreciation is clearly distinct and different from that of registration as a charitable trust, and, for this reason, what is held in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) would not be applicable in the present context. 30. It is then contended that while the assessee has an option to claim or not to claim the benefit of Section