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, 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

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

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

29 or 30 of the said SEBI Regulations. The assessee has provided the registration certificate, and the condition provided in section 10(23FB) of the Act is fulfilled, the assessing officer cannot deny the exemption. It was submitted that Chapter III of SEBI (VCF) Regulation specifies the investment conditions and restriction for VCF does not any restriction

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

disallowance can be made of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) on the allegation that commercial area exceeds the limit prescribed therein, framed the following question:– ―Whether section 80IB(10)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to a housing project approved before 31st March 2005, but completed on/or after 1st April 2005.‖ 19 M/s. Sai Home Makers

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)

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 10(35) of the Act is deleted." 16. Against the above order Revenue is in appeal before us. 17. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. However, he could not point out as to why assessee shall not be allowed exemption

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)

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 10(35) of the Act is deleted." 16. Against the above order Revenue is in appeal before us. 17. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. However, he could not point out as to why assessee shall not be allowed exemption

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

29 or 30 of the said\nRegulation. Undisputedly, in case of the present assessee there is\nno such allegation or action by the SEBI which could demonstrate\nviolation of any conditions imposed by SEBI. At least, no material\nhas been brought before us by the learned Departmental\nRepresentative to demonstrate such fact. Thus, in the absence of\nany allegation

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 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The Grounds stated above are independent of, and without prejudice to The Grounds stated above are independent of, and without prejudice

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 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. count of furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The Grounds stated above are independent of, and without prejudice to The Grounds stated above are independent of, and without prejudice

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

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

.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

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

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

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