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

25 of the said\nRegulation empowers the Board to inspect or investigate the\nbooks of account, records and documents of a Venture Capital\nFund through an Inspecting or Investigating Officer and on the\nbasis of such report, the Board can take such measures against\nthe Venture Capital Fund as per section 29 or 30 of the said\nRegulation. 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

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

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

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

.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

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

SUBHASH E. DHARGAVE, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUNDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

ITO, MUMBAI vs. AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, VILE PARLE-WEST, 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

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

AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO25(2)(1), 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

AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), 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

AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(2)(1), 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