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 ()

10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section

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 ()

10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 14A of the Act. It is noted that while invoking Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer first proceeded to that while invoking Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer first proceeded to that while invoking Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer first proceeded to compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i). He segregated compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2

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. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the learned Principal Commissioner in the order passed under section 263 of the Act. 13. We have patiently and carefully considered rival submissions and perused

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

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

disallowance of shares of\nprivate companies only but not "any property” as mentioned in the\nsection 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The AO further observed that\nexplanation applicable to section 56(2)(viia) is only related to \"fair\nmarket value” as described in the explanation to section 56(2)(vii)\nof the Act, not the other explanations.\nThe

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

2,000 sq.ft., hence, not eligible to claim deduction under section 80IB(10) in view of clause (d) of section 80IB(10), learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Hiranandani Akruti (JV) held that as assessee‟s project was approved on 1st February 2005, clause (d) of section 80IB(10) will not apply

DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. ATEEV V GALA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-17(2), Ateev V. Gala, R. No.217, 02Nd Floor, 575/A, The Orient Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Jamshed Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Matunga Mumbai-400019 Pan No.Aalpg6039N (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

disallowance of Rs.85 lakhs received as gift from HUF without appreciating the fact that HUF does not come under the term ‘group of relatives’ defined u/s 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. During hearing, Shri R.P. Meena, ld. CIT-DR, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by advancing arguments, which is identical

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

10 and thereafter claimed various deductions under section 11 of the Act. Thus, the AO has wrongly deductions under section 11 of the Act. Thus, the AO has wrongly deductions under section 11 of the Act. Thus, the AO has wrongly applied the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court applied the proposition of law laid

GRAMEEN IMPACT INVESTMENT INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL -E ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Grameen Impact Investments India National-E-Assessment Pvt. Ltd., Centre, 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. New Delhi-110 001. Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ars : Revenue By Mr. Satyapal Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/12/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grameen Impact Investments India Dy. Cit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, Aayakar 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra Mumbai-400050. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent

Section 10(2)(x) and 10(2)(×v) of the Income Tax Act. 1922 n 10(2)(x) and 10(2)(×v) of the Income Tax Act. 1922 n 10(2)(x) and 10(2)(×v) of the Income Tax Act. 1922 at the relevant time read as follows: at the relevant time read as follows: 10(2

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)

disallowed the said claim of deduction u/s. 10(35) of the Act for the following reasons: i) the assessee Fund which was created to function as a VCF was eligible for deduction under a specific section 10(23FB) and therefore it cannot claim deduction under another section of 10(35) on a part of its income. After the amendment

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)

disallowed the said claim of deduction u/s. 10(35) of the Act for the following reasons: i) the assessee Fund which was created to function as a VCF was eligible for deduction under a specific section 10(23FB) and therefore it cannot claim deduction under another section of 10(35) on a part of its income. After the amendment

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

10,00,000 SANSTHA Laxmiben Lalji Furia Charitable Laxmiben Lalji Furia Charitable AAATL0063C 2,00,000 2,00,000 Trust Total Donation 24,98,000 24,98,000 Qualifying Amount 24,98,000 24,98,000 Deductible amount under section 80 G @ 50% Deductible amount under section 80 G @ 50% 12,49,000 12,49,000 Jeevandeep Edumedia

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 assessee's claim of\nexemption holding that all other income of VCFs, except, the\nincome covered under section 10(23FB) of the Act is taxable.\nAccording to the Assessing Officer, the expression 'person' as\ndefined under section 2

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

10) Disallowance u/s. - - - Ground No.4 - 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) Addition towards rental Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.5 - income Disallowance u/s.14A - - - Ground No.6 - Addition made u/s.43CA Ground No.5 - - Ground No.7 - Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

10) Disallowance u/s. - - - Ground No.4 - 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) Addition towards rental Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.5 - income Disallowance u/s.14A - - - Ground No.6 - Addition made u/s.43CA Ground No.5 - - Ground No.7 - Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

10) Disallowance u/s. - - - Ground No.4 - 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) Addition towards rental Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.5 - income Disallowance u/s.14A - - - Ground No.6 - Addition made u/s.43CA Ground No.5 - - Ground No.7 - Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

10) Disallowance u/s. - - - Ground No.4 - 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) Addition towards rental Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.4 Ground No.5 - income Disallowance u/s.14A - - - Ground No.6 - Addition made u/s.43CA Ground No.5 - - Ground No.7 - Disallowance u/s.37(1) - - - Ground No.8 - r.w.s.36(1)(iii) Addition made u/s.69C - - - - Ground No.5 to 7 Assessment order passed Addition Addition - Addition without issue of notice