TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance

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 ()

34), and 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

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 ()

34), and 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

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 ()

34), and 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

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 ()

34), and 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

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

disallowances/ denial of exemption under section 10 (23FB) held that investment made by assessee in mutual funds in line with SEBI (VCF) Regulation and the same is not a non-compliance of SEBI (VCF) Regulation, therefore, assessee is entitled for exemption. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee in the present appeal

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

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.(O.S.D.) -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) is not overridden by the provisions of section 44 of the Act. Ground No 2 The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO to disallow the exemption of Rs 18,47,89,000/- in respect of income of pension fund under section 10

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) is not overridden by the provisions of section 44 of the Act. Ground No 2 The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO to disallow the exemption of Rs 18,47,89,000/- in respect of income of pension fund under section 10

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPLANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) is not overridden by the provisions of section 44 of the Act. Ground No 2 The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO to disallow the exemption of Rs 18,47,89,000/- in respect of income of pension fund under section 10

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) is not overridden by the provisions of section 44 of the Act. Ground No 2 The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO to disallow the exemption of Rs 18,47,89,000/- in respect of income of pension fund under section 10

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) is not overridden by the provisions of section 44 of the Act. Ground No 2 The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO to disallow the exemption of Rs 18,47,89,000/- in respect of income of pension fund under section 10

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

section 10(34) of the Act does not deal\nwith income derived from property held under trust.\n11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, CIRCLE-8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

34) of the Act and 10(23AAB) was allowable to the assessee while calculating its income under section 44 read with First Schedule of the Act without considering its impact with Section 14A wrt to disallowance

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

section 10(34) of the Act does not deal\nwith income derived from property held under trust.\n11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEPTION) -CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

section 10(34) of the Act does not deal\nwith income derived from property held under trust.\n11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

section 10(34) of the Act does not deal\nwith income derived from property held under trust.\n11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance