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

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

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

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, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

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 or action

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

.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)(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

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

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

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

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

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(34) of the Act for a sum of Rs. 2,99,17,200/-in respect of Dividend Income as the denial thereof is unwarranted, unjustified and unreasonable. II. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-GGA READ WITH SECTION 35AC OF THE ACT: RS, 35,67,302/- 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

DCIT- 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED , MUMBAI

disallowing\nexemption under section 10(34) with regard to the dividend\nincome earned, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) after relying upon\nvarious decisions held that section 14A is not applicable to Life\nInsurance Company. The Tribunal has reiterated the same view\nin the above cases that provisions of section 14A will not apply\nto Insurance companies, whose income