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 14A, Similarly, with regard

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 14A, Similarly, with regard

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

section 10(23 FB) of the Act. To buttress his submission the learned Sr Advocate of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: (a) Milestone Real Estate Fund Versus ACIT (ITA No. 2509 /Mum/2018), (b) DHFL capital fund Versus ITO [2016] 157 ITD 60 (Mumbai Tribunal), (c) G.V.K. Bioscience Private limited Vs ACIT[2014] 67 SOT 163 (Hyderabad Tribunal

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

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 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)

23(1) Vs. M/s Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund [ITA No. 7504/Mum/2019; Assessment Year 2016-2017, dated 13/05/2021] wherein the Tribunal had rejected the contention of the Revenue that exemption under Section 10(35) of the Act would not be available to a Venture Capital Fund eligible to claim exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act. The relevant extract

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)

23(1) Vs. M/s Aditya Birla Real Estate Fund [ITA No. 7504/Mum/2019; Assessment Year 2016-2017, dated 13/05/2021] wherein the Tribunal had rejected the contention of the Revenue that exemption under Section 10(35) of the Act would not be available to a Venture Capital Fund eligible to claim exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act. The relevant extract

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

23) of the Act are not attracted in the facts of the\npresent case.\n(b) The investments made by the Assessee in domestic\ncompanies in real estate sector cannot be regarded as\nfalling outside the ambit of definition of 'Venture Capital\nUndertaking' as contained in Regulation 2(n) of the SEBI\n(Venture Capital Fund) Regulation, 1996 since

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

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

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

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

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

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

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

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

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

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

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

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

AKASH ENTERPRISE,THANE vs. I.T.O. WARD-4(1), THANE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 M/S Akash Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, Shop No.27/A, Bldg. No.1, Ward-4(1), बनाम/ Akashganga Apts. 02Nd Floor Vs. Shriprastha Complex, Qureshi Mansion, Nallasopara (W), Tal Vasai, Gokhale Road, Dist-Thane-401203 Thane Pan No.Aalfa4071C ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2007-08 Income Tax Officer, M/S Akash Enterprises, Ward-4(1), Shop No.27/A, Bldg. बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, No.1, Akashganga Apts. Vs. Qureshi Mansion, Shriprastha Complex, Gokhale Road, Nallasopara (W), Tal Thane Vasai, Dist-Thane- 401203 Pan No.Aalfa4071C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Akash Enterprises.

disallowing the deduction of Rs.46,59,510/- u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). The crux of the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee is that the project of the assessee was approved on 17/07/2003 and the assessee applied for completion certificate on 06/07/2005. Our attention was M/s Akash Enterprises. invited to page

M/S. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKER IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

disallowed. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted, up to assessment year 1998–99, the assessee was notified to avail exemption under section 10(23