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

disallowance would tantamount to questioning the recognition. In other words entries made in the register of independent body should be accepted as true and they should not be questioned while deciding the issue relating to the matters concluded by the entries made in such registers. From this it follows that if assessee trust is registered with SEBI as per certificate

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

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. 27

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

disallowed deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) in respect of Flat no.C–101 and C–102, relying upon the valuation report of the DVO stating that the built–up area of these two flats exceeded the prescribed limit of 1,000 sq.ft. applicable to the housing project in the municipal limit of Mumbai. However, reference being had to the valuation

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

27,93,22,744/-, u/s 10(23FB) of the I.T. Act ?" Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act, by ignoring the fact that section 10(23FB) clearly states that the entire income of a VCF is not exempt

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)

27,93,22,744/-, u/s 10(23FB) of the I.T. Act ?" 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act, by ignoring the fact that section 10(231B) clearly states that the entire income

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)

27,93,22,744/-, u/s 10(23FB) of the I.T. Act ?" 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act, by ignoring the fact that section 10(231B) clearly states that the entire income

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

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

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

.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

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

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

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

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

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

10% of gross total income or the actual claim whichever is less. 43. In so far as claim of deduction u/s. 80GGA of the Act, the AO observed that such claim was not made in the return of income but was claimed in the computation of income, accordingly, he disallowed assessee’s claim all together. The assessee agitated the issue

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