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, 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

JM FINANCIAL INDIA FUND-SCHEME B,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjm Financial India Fund-Scheme Ito - 17(2)(1) Room No. 123-B, 1St Floor, B, 141, Maker Chambers Iii, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabtj0401F Appellant Respondent

disallowances/ denial of exemption under section 10 (23FB) held that investment made by assessee in mutual funds in line with SEBI (VCF) Regulation and the same is not a non-compliance of SEBI (VCF) Regulation, therefore, assessee is entitled for exemption. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee in the present appeal

MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-25, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanmilestone Real Estate Fund 402–A, Hallmark Business Plaza Sant Dhyaneshwar Marg ……………. Appellant Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaati5880L V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–25(3), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel A/W Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

disallowed, since, all the conditions of section 10(23FB) as well as section 115U of the Act are fulfilled. 20 Milestone Real Estate Fund 12

ACIT, CENT. CIR.2, THANE vs. SAI HOME MAKERS, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

disallowed deduction under section 80IB(10) in respect of these two flats. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 12

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

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

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

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect

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

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect

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

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect

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

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect

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

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect

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

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80IA(12A) of the income Tax Act 1961. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appels) has erred in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation spilled over from earlier year amounting to Rs 24,12,51,789 u/s 32 (1) of the IT Act in respect

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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

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

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

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, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

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-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