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

25 M/s. Sai Home Makers stating that out of total 167 flats in the housing project only two flats in the “C” Wing being Flat no.C–101 and C–102, exceed the prescribed built–up area of 1,000 sq.ft. Taking into account, the report of the DVO, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed deduction under section 80IB(10

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)

disallow assessee's claim of exemption alleging violation of SEBI conditions. Thus, the reasoning of the learned Principal Commissioner that the assessee has violated SEBI Regulations, hence, not eligible to avail exemption under section 10(23FB) of the Act is unsustainable.” (Emphasis Supplied) 25

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)

disallow assessee's claim of exemption alleging violation of SEBI conditions. Thus, the reasoning of the learned Principal Commissioner that the assessee has violated SEBI Regulations, hence, not eligible to avail exemption under section 10(23FB) of the Act is unsustainable.” (Emphasis Supplied) 25

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

25 of the said Regulation empowers the Board to inspect or investigate the books of account, records and documents of a Venture Capital Fund through an Inspecting or Investigating Officer and on the basis of such report, the Board can take such measures against the Venture Capital Fund as per section 29 or 30 of the said Regulation. Undisputedly

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 10(23FB) of the Act. of section 10(23FB) of the Act. Therefore, following the finding of the Tribunal herefore, following the finding of the Tribunal (supra) (supra), we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

section 10(23FB) of the Act. of section 10(23FB) of the Act. Therefore, following the finding of the Tribunal herefore, following the finding of the Tribunal (supra) (supra), we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow

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

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

disallowance of deduction under section 10 B are similar. As we have categorically held in assessment year 2001 – 02 in ITA number 2943/M/2000 date that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10 B of the act, giving similar reasons for this year also, we dismiss the appeal of the learned assessing officer and confirmed the order of learned

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

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

disallowance of deduction under section 10 B are similar. As we have categorically held in assessment year 2001 – 02 in ITA number 2943/M/2000 date that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10 B of the act, giving similar reasons for this year also, we dismiss the appeal of the learned assessing officer and confirmed the order of learned

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

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

disallowance of deduction under section 10 B are similar. As we have categorically held in assessment year 2001 – 02 in ITA number 2943/M/2000 date that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10 B of the act, giving similar reasons for this year also, we dismiss the appeal of the learned assessing officer and confirmed the order of learned

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

disallowance of deduction under section 10 B are similar. As we have categorically held in assessment year 2001 – 02 in ITA number 2943/M/2000 date that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10 B of the act, giving similar reasons for this year also, we dismiss the appeal of the learned assessing officer and confirmed the order of learned

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

disallowance of deduction under section 10 B are similar. As we have categorically held in assessment year 2001 – 02 in ITA number 2943/M/2000 date that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10 B of the act, giving similar reasons for this year also, we dismiss the appeal of the learned assessing officer and confirmed the order of learned

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

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

disallowance of deduction under section 10 B are similar. As we have categorically held in assessment year 2001 – 02 in ITA number 2943/M/2000 date that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10 B of the act, giving similar reasons for this year also, we dismiss the appeal of the learned assessing officer and confirmed the order of learned

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

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

disallowance of deduction under section 10 B are similar. As we have categorically held in assessment year 2001 – 02 in ITA number 2943/M/2000 date that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10 B of the act, giving similar reasons for this year also, we dismiss the appeal of the learned assessing officer and confirmed the order of learned

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

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 10(23G) of the Act at ` 69,24,18,459, the balance amount of ` 25,49,09,303, was disallowed

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 ()

25,167/- - against the claim of the Assessee of Rs. 10,53,55,857/ claim of the Assessee of Rs. 10,53,55,857/-. Therefore, the . Therefore, the balance amount of Rs.67169310/ balance amount of Rs.67169310/- has been added to the total has been added to the total income. Against the disallowance of expenditure, it is contended inst the disallowance

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. ASHISH CONSTRUCTION CO., THANE

In the result, the common question of law framed in these two appeals are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006 - 2007 Asst. Cit Circle-2, Ashish Construction Co., Thane S-1, Narmada Apartments, बनाम/ Cabin Road, Bhayander Vs. Road (E), Thane 401 105 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aajfa4249G राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri V Vidhyadhar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Sanjay Sharma

disallowance of the claim under section 80-IB(10) were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals). 11. On further appeals filed by the assessee, the Tribunal by its orders dated April 29, 2009, and May 27, 2009, held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 80-IB(10). Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER-34(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, VILLE PARLE EAST MUMBAI

25,28,114, and the entire profit was claimed as a\ndeduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed\nits return of income, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. The return filed by the\nassessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2)\nand section 142(1) of the Act, along with