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 ()

Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is computed in accordance with

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 ()

Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is computed in accordance with

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

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

c) of section 80IB(10) as according to DVO the built–up area is more than 1,000 sq.ft. Therefore, only because two of the flats have not complied to the conditions of section 80IB(10), A.O‟s conclusion that assessee‟s claim of deduction under the said provision in respect of 165 flats would not be allowable defies logic

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-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)

c) The contention of the Revenue that an investment made by the Assessee as an investment in Venture Capital Undertaking has to be tested on the basis of the definition of Venture Capital Undertaking as on the date of investment does not have any statutory basis. The sectoral restriction on the business of the domestic companies otherwise falling within

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)

c) The contention of the Revenue that an investment made by the Assessee as an investment in Venture Capital Undertaking has to be tested on the basis of the definition of Venture Capital Undertaking as on the date of investment does not have any statutory basis. The sectoral restriction on the business of the domestic companies otherwise falling within

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

SUMAN P KHURANA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suman P. Khurana बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor, 501, Raheja Centre, Free Press Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mumbai-400021. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.S स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk0190Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekhar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Annual Value Of The Property At Maker Chambers Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai At Rs.82,86,301/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Value Of The Property At Gujranwala Town, Delhi At Rs.6,60,000/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee.

section (3) of Sec. 23. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the requirement that the 'house is actually let' during the year is not to be taken as a 17 A.Y. 2012-13 prerequisite for bringing the case of an assessee within the sweep of Sec. 23(1)(c) of the 'Act', as long as the property

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

.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

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

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

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