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 ()

30,155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section

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 ()

30,155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section

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 ()

30,155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section

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

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

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

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

30 of the said Regulation. Undisputedly, in case of the present assessee there is no such allegation or action by the SEBI which could demonstrate violation of any conditions imposed by SEBI. At least, no material has been brought before us by the learned Departmental Representative to demonstrate such fact. Thus, in the absence of any allegation or action

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)

30 of the said Regulation. Undisputedly, in case of the present assessee there is no such allegation or action by the SEBI which could demonstrate violation of any conditions imposed by SEBI. At least, no material has been brought before us by the learned Departmental Representative to demonstrate such fact. Thus, in the absence of any allegation or action

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)

30 of the said Regulation. Undisputedly, in case of the present assessee there is no such allegation or action by the SEBI which could demonstrate violation of any conditions imposed by SEBI. At least, no material has been brought before us by the learned Departmental Representative to demonstrate such fact. Thus, in the absence of any allegation or action

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

30 to 38 of the 1961 Act? 10. On the above question of law, Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of assessee, contended that prior to 1-4-1993, section 40(b) referred to disallowances

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

30 to 38 of the 1961 Act? 10. On the above question of law, Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of assessee, contended that prior to 1-4-1993, section 40(b) referred to disallowances

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 ()

disallowance would tantamount to questioning the recognition. In other words entries made in the register to questioning the recognition. In other words entries made in the register to questioning the recognition. In other words entries made in the register of independe of independent body should be accepted as true and they should not be nt body should be accepted

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 ()

disallowance would tantamount to questioning the recognition. In other words entries made in the register to questioning the recognition. In other words entries made in the register to questioning the recognition. In other words entries made in the register of independe of independent body should be accepted as true and they should not be nt body should be accepted

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

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)(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

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