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 ()

22,236/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/- indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ + = ½ percent of the average of + = ½ percent of the average of the value of relevant investments the value of relevant investments ) should not be disallowed and amounting to Rs.11

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 ()

22,236/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/- indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ + = ½ percent of the average of + = ½ percent of the average of the value of relevant investments the value of relevant investments ) should not be disallowed and amounting to Rs.11

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

section 10(22)/10(23C)(iiiad) provided a clear finding on the basis of material on record is given that assessee trust is not existing solely for educational purposes. Here purpose is what described in the memorandum of objects of the trust. Some items of disallowances

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

22 of said SEBI regulations empower SEBI to call upon the VCF to file such report, as SEBI may desire with regard to the activities carried out on by the VCF. Further regulation 25 of the said SEBI regulations empowers the SEBI to inspect or investigate the books of account, records and documents of VCF, through an inspecting or investigating

THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE INDIAN INSITUTE OF BANKERS),MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

10(22) of the Act in assessment years 1996–97 to 1998–99, was disallowed by the Department. The assessee challenged the disallowance of exemption under section

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

disallowance can be made of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) on the allegation that commercial area exceeds the limit prescribed therein, framed the following question:– ―Whether section 80IB(10)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to a housing project approved before 31st March 2005, but completed on/or after 1st April 2005.‖ 19 M/s. Sai Home Makers

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)

22 of the said Regulation empowers SEBI to call upon the Venture Capital Fund to file such report, as the Board may desire with regard to activities carried on by the Venture Capital Fund. Further, section 25 of the said Regulation empowers the Board to inspect or investigate the books of account, records and documents of a Venture Capital Fund

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)

22 of the said Regulation empowers SEBI to call upon the Venture Capital Fund to file such report, as the Board may desire with regard to activities carried on by the Venture Capital Fund. Further, section 25 of the said Regulation empowers the Board to inspect or investigate the books of account, records and documents of a Venture Capital Fund

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

22 of the said Regulation\nempowers SEBI to call upon the Venture Capital Fund to file such\nreport, as the Board may desire with regard to activities carried\non by the Venture Capital Fund. Further, section 25 of the said\nRegulation empowers the Board to inspect or investigate the\nbooks of account, records and documents of a Venture Capital\nFund

.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. Accordingly the claim of deduction of ₹ 22,778,606/– was disallowed. 17. As the assessee did not produce

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. Accordingly the claim of deduction of ₹ 22,778,606/– was disallowed. 17. As the assessee did not produce

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. Accordingly the claim of deduction of ₹ 22,778,606/– was disallowed. 17. As the assessee did not produce

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. Accordingly the claim of deduction of ₹ 22,778,606/– was disallowed. 17. As the assessee did not produce

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. Accordingly the claim of deduction of ₹ 22,778,606/– was disallowed. 17. As the assessee did not produce

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. Accordingly the claim of deduction of ₹ 22,778,606/– was disallowed. 17. As the assessee did not produce

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. Accordingly the claim of deduction of ₹ 22,778,606/– was disallowed. 17. As the assessee did not produce

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

10. erred in not considering only investments earning exempt dividend for the purpose disallowance under section 14A of the Act; 11. erred in holding that the AO has correctly considered the gross interest expenditure while calculating the disallowance under section 14A of the Act as against the net interest expenditure. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled