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

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

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

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

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

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

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

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

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

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

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

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

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

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

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

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

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

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

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

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

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

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 ()

25(1)(1), Vs. Nariman Point, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43 Mumbai-400021. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AABTJ 0513 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/ Mr. Pinak Shah Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR : 25/06/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT

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 ()

25(1)(1), Vs. Nariman Point, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43 Mumbai-400021. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AABTJ 0513 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/ Mr. Pinak Shah Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR : 25/06/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT

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

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

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67,84,065/- and deleted 25

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67,84,065/- and deleted 25

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 3,60,61,410/- 32. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67,84,065/- and deleted 25

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

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