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 ()

12, 2013-14 and 2014 14 and 2014-15, the disallowance of exemption 15, the disallowance of exemption claimed by the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG

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 ()

12, 2013-14 and 2014 14 and 2014-15, the disallowance of exemption 15, the disallowance of exemption claimed by the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG

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 ()

12, 2013-14 and 2014 14 and 2014-15, the disallowance of exemption 15, the disallowance of exemption claimed by the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow such benefit in the hands of someone who has not taken these risks and had only acquired such eligible undertakings much later when the risk had reduced. 39. In the rejoinder, the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the interpretation of CBDT is contrary to the plain reading of sub-section (12) or (12A), as also the explanatory

ACIT-231, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

12. We note that Section 10(23FB) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 01/04/2001. As originally enacted, Section 10(23FB) of the Act provided exemption in respect of „any income‟ of Venture Capital Fund set-up to raise funds for investment in „Venture Capital Undertaking‟ being a domestic company whose shares are not listed

ACIT 23-1, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

12. We note that Section 10(23FB) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 01/04/2001. As originally enacted, Section 10(23FB) of the Act provided exemption in respect of „any income‟ of Venture Capital Fund set-up to raise funds for investment in „Venture Capital Undertaking‟ being a domestic company whose shares are not listed

ACIT, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Section 10(23FB) of the Act.” 12.\nIn the background of aforesaid discussion and\nprecedent we do not find any infirmity in the order\nof learned CIT(A). In this view of the matter we\nuphold the order of learned CIT(A).\nGround No.2.\n13.\nBrief facts are that the AO stated in his order that\nthe income

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

12. Further, a careful perusal of section 115U prescribes that the income Further, a careful perusal of section 115U prescribes that the income Further, a careful perusal of section 115U prescribes that the income accruing or arising to the unit holders of VCF out of investments made in accruing or arising to the unit holders of VCF out of investments

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

12. Further, a careful perusal of section 115U prescribes that the income Further, a careful perusal of section 115U prescribes that the income Further, a careful perusal of section 115U prescribes that the income accruing or arising to the unit holders of VCF out of investments made in accruing or arising to the unit holders of VCF out of investments

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

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(34) of the IT Act, as described earlier, since the appellant is held in the status of the trust and itself had filed its return of income in Form ITR-7, the governing provisions which deal with its income are section 11,12

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

section 10 B of the income tax act. 12. The second ground of disallowance of deduction was that that the beneficial

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

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

section 10 B of the income tax act. 12. The second ground of disallowance of deduction was that that the beneficial

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

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

section 10 B of the income tax act. 12. The second ground of disallowance of deduction was that that the beneficial

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

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

section 10 B of the income tax act. 12. The second ground of disallowance of deduction was that that the beneficial

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

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

section 10 B of the income tax act. 12. The second ground of disallowance of deduction was that that the beneficial

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

section 10 B of the income tax act. 12. The second ground of disallowance of deduction was that that the beneficial

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

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

section 10 B of the income tax act. 12. The second ground of disallowance of deduction was that that the beneficial

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowed. Identical is the situation\nin the present appeal. When there is no restriction imposed under\nsection 10(23FB) of the Act with regard to availing of exemption\nunder section 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act, the assessee's claim\ncannot be denied.\nPage No. 21\nITA NO.91/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)\nAditya Birla Private Equity Trust